Category: Gregory Nazianzen

The Fifth Theological Oration: On the Holy Spirit.

The Fifth Theological Oration. On the Holy Spirit.

Such then is the account of the Son, and in this manner He has escaped those who would stone Him, passing through the midst of them. For the Word is not stoned, but throws stones when He pleases, and uses a sling against wild beasts—that is, against words—when they approach the Mount in an unholy way. But they go on to ask, "What do you have to say about the Holy Spirit? Where are you getting this strange God you're bringing in upon us, about whom Scripture is silent?" Even those who are moderate concerning the Son speak this way. And just as we see with roads and rivers that they split apart from one another and then join together again, so it happens in this case too, through the excess of impiety, that people who disagree on everything else have some points of agreement here, so that you can never tell for certain either where they are in agreement or where they are in conflict.

I. Such then is the account of the Son, and in this manner He has escaped those who would stone Him, passing through the midst of them. For the Word is not stoned, but casts stones when He pleases; and uses a sling against wild beasts–that is, words–approaching the Mount in an unholy way. But, they go on, what have you to say about the Holy Ghost? From whence are you bringing in upon us this strange God, of Whom Scripture is silent? And even they who keep within bounds as to the Son speak thus. And just as we find in the case of roads and rivers, that they split off from one another and join again, so it happens also in this case, through the superabundance of impiety, that people who differ in all other respects have here some points of agreement, so that you never can tell for certain either where they are of one mind, or where they are in conflict.

Now the subject of the Holy Spirit presents a special difficulty, not only because when these people have grown tired in their arguments about the Son, they fight with even greater intensity against the Spirit (since it seems absolutely necessary for them to have some target on which to express their impiety, or life would seem to them no longer worth living), but also because we ourselves, worn out by the flood of their questions, find ourselves in somewhat the same condition as people who have lost their appetite. Just as those who have developed a distaste for one particular kind of food shrink from all food, so we in the same way have developed an aversion to all debates. Yet may the Spirit grant it to us, and then the discussion will proceed, and God will be glorified. Well then, we will leave to others who have worked on this subject for us as well as for themselves, just as we have worked on it for them, the task of carefully examining and distinguishing in how many senses the word Spirit or the word Holy is used and understood in Holy Scripture, with the evidence appropriate to such an investigation, and of showing how besides these the combination of the two words—I mean, Holy Spirit—is used in a distinctive sense. But we will turn our attention to the rest of the subject.

II. Now the subject of the Holy Spirit presents a special difficulty, not only because when these men have become weary in their disputations concerning the Son, they struggle with greater heat against the Spirit (for it seems to be absolutely necessary for them to have some object on which to give expression to their impiety, or life would appear to them no longer worth living), but further because we ourselves also, being worn out by the multitude of their questions, are in something of the same condition with men who have lost their appetite; who having taken a dislike to some particular kind of food, shrink from all food; so we in like manner have an aversion from all discussions. Yet may the Spirit grant it to us, and then the discourse will proceed, and God will be glorified. Well then, we will leave to others who have worked upon this subject for us as well as for themselves, as we have worked upon it for them, the task of examining carefully and distinguishing in how many senses the word Spirit or the word Holy is used and understood in Holy Scripture, with the evidence suitable to such an enquiry; and of showing how besides these the combination of the two words–I mean, Holy Spirit–is used in a peculiar sense; but we will apply ourselves to the remainder of the subject.

Those who are angry with us for supposedly introducing a strange or added God—namely, the Holy Spirit—and who fight so fiercely for the letter of Scripture, should know that they are afraid where there is nothing to fear. I want them to understand clearly that their love for the letter is merely a cover for their impiety, as will be shown later when we refute their objections as thoroughly as we can. But we have such confidence in the Deity of the Spirit whom we worship that we will begin our teaching about His Godhead by applying to Him the Names that belong to the Trinity, even if some people think we are too bold. The Father was the True Light which enlightens every man coming into the world. The Son was the True Light which enlightens every man coming into the world. The Other Comforter was the True Light which enlightens every man coming into the world. Was and Was and Was, but Was One Thing. Light three times repeated, but One Light and One God. This is what David pictured to himself long before when he said, "In Your Light shall we see Light." And now we have both seen and proclaim briefly and plainly the doctrine of God the Trinity, understanding it as out of Light (the Father), Light (the Son), in Light (the Holy Spirit). Whoever rejects it, let him reject it; and whoever does evil, let him do evil; we proclaim what we have understood. We will go up onto a high mountain and will shout, if we are not heard below; we will exalt the Spirit; we will not be afraid—or if we are afraid, it will be of keeping silent, not of proclaiming.

III. They then who are angry with us on the ground that we are bringing in a strange or interpolated God, viz.:–the Holy Ghost, and who fight so very hard for the letter, should know that they are afraid where no fear is; and I would have them clearly understand that their love for the letter is but a cloak for their impiety, as shall be shown later on, when we refute their objections to the utmost of our power. But we have so much confidence in the Deity of the Spirit Whom we adore, that we will begin our teaching concerning His Godhead by fitting to Him the Names which belong to the Trinity, even though some persons may think us too bold. The Father was the True Light which lightens every man coming into the world. The Son was the True Light which lightens every man coming into the world. The Other Comforter was the True Light which lightens every man coming into the world. Was and Was and Was, but Was One Thing. Light thrice repeated; but One Light and One God. This was what David represented to himself long before when he said, In Your Light shall we see Light. And now we have both seen and proclaim concisely and simply the doctrine of God the Trinity, comprehending out of Light (the Father), Light (the Son), in Light (the Holy Ghost). He that rejects it, let him reject it; and he that does iniquity, let him do iniquity; we proclaim that which we have understood. We will get us up into a high mountain, and will shout, if we be not heard, below; we will exalt the Spirit; we will not be afraid; or if we are afraid, it shall be of keeping silence, not of proclaiming.

IV. If there was ever a time when the Father did not exist, then there was a time when the Son did not exist. If there was ever a time when the Son did not exist, then there was a time when the Spirit did not exist. If the One existed from the beginning, then the Three existed from the beginning as well. If you deny the One, I am bold enough to say that you do not establish the other Two either. For what value is there in an incomplete Godhead? Or better yet, what kind of Godhead can there be if it is not perfect? And how can it be perfect if it lacks something necessary for perfection? And surely something is lacking if it does not have holiness, and how could it have holiness if it were without the Spirit? For either holiness is something different from Him, and if so, let someone tell me what they think it is; or if it is the same thing as the Spirit, how is He not from the beginning—as if it were better for God to be at one time imperfect and lacking the Spirit? If He is not from the beginning, He is on the same level as I am, even if slightly before me in time; for we would both be separated from Godhead by time. If He is on the same level as I am, how can He make me God, or join me to Godhead?

IV. If ever there was a time when the Father was not, then there was a time when the Son was not. If ever there was a time when the Son was not, then there was a time when the Spirit was not. If the One was from the beginning, then the Three were so too. If you throw down the One, I am bold to assert that you do not set up the other Two. For what profit is there in an imperfect Godhead? Or rather, what Godhead can there be if It is not perfect? And how can that be perfect which lacks something of perfection? And surely there is something lacking if it has not the Holy, and how would it have this if it were without the Spirit? For either holiness is something different from Him, and if so let some one tell me what it is conceived to be; or if it is the same, how is it not from the beginning, as if it were better for God to be at one time imperfect and apart from the Spirit? If He is not from the beginning, He is in the same rank with myself, even though a little before me; for we are both parted from Godhead by time. If He is in the same rank with myself, how can He make me God, or join me with Godhead?

Or rather, let me discuss Him with you starting from a slightly earlier point, since we have already covered the Trinity. The Sadducees completely denied the existence of the Holy Spirit, just as they denied Angels and the Resurrection, rejecting—I don't know on what basis—the significant testimonies about Him in the Old Testament. Among the Greeks, those who are more inclined to speak about God and who come closest to our position have formed some understanding of Him, it seems to me, though they have disagreed about His name and have called Him the Mind of the World, or the External Mind, and similar things. But among the wise men in our own tradition, some have understood Him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God, and some have been uncertain what to call Him, out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as though Scripture did not make the matter clear either way. Therefore they neither worship Him nor dishonor Him, but take up a neutral position—or rather a very miserable one—toward Him. Among those who consider Him to be God, some hold this view only in their minds, while others dare to say so openly as well. I have even heard of some who are more clever still and try to measure Deity. These agree with us that there are Three, but they have separated Them from one another so completely that they make One of Them infinite in both ousia and power, the second infinite in power but not in ousia, and the third limited in both. In this way they imitate in a different form those who call Them the Creator, the Co-operator, and the Minister, and believe that the same order and rank that belongs to these names also applies as a hierarchy in reality.

V. Or rather, let me reason with you about Him from a somewhat earlier point, for we have already discussed the Trinity. The Sadducees altogether denied the existence of the Holy Spirit, just as they did that of Angels and the Resurrection; rejecting, I know not upon what ground, the important testimonies concerning Him in the Old Testament. And of the Greeks those who are more inclined to speak of God, and who approach nearest to us, have formed some conception of Him, as it seems to me, though they have differed as to His Name, and have addressed Him as the Mind of the World, or the External Mind, and the like. But of the wise men amongst ourselves, some have conceived of him as an Activity, some as a Creature, some as God; and some have been uncertain which to call Him, out of reverence for Scripture, they say, as though it did not make the matter clear either way. And therefore they neither worship Him nor treat Him with dishonour, but take up a neutral position, or rather a very miserable one, with respect to Him. And of those who consider Him to be God, some are orthodox in mind only, while others venture to be so with the lips also. And I have heard of some who are even more clever, and measure Deity; and these agree with us that there are Three Conceptions; but they have separated these from one another so completely as to make one of them infinite both in essence and power, and the second in power but not in essence, and the third circumscribed in both; thus imitating in another way those who call them the Creator, the Co-operator, and the Minister, and consider that the same order and dignity which belongs to these names is also a sequence in the facts.

VI. But we cannot enter into any discussion with those who do not even believe in His existence, nor with the Greek babblers (for we would not be enriched in our argument with the oil of sinners). With the others, however, we will argue as follows. The Holy Spirit must certainly be conceived of either as belonging to the category of the Self-existent, or as belonging to that of the things which are contemplated in another. Those who are skilled in such matters call the first class Substance and the second Accident. Now if He were an Accident, He would be an Activity of God, for what else, or of whom else, could He be, since this is what most avoids composition? And if He is an Activity, He will be effected but will not effect, and will cease to exist as soon as He has been effected, for this is the nature of an Activity. How is it then that He acts and says such and such things, and defines, and is grieved, and is angered, and has all the qualities that clearly belong to one that moves, and not to movement? But if He is a Substance and not an attribute of Substance, He will be conceived of either as a creature of God, or as God. For anything between these two—whether having nothing in common with either, or being a compound of both—not even those who invented the goat-stag could imagine. Now, if He is a creature, how do we believe in Him, how are we made perfect in Him? For it is not the same thing to believe in a thing and to believe about it. The one belongs to Deity, the other to—anything. But if He is God, then He is neither a creature, nor a thing made, nor a fellow servant, nor any of these lowly appellations.

VI. But we cannot enter into any discussion with those who do not even believe in His existence, nor with the Greek babblers (for we would not be enriched in our argument with the oil of sinners). With the others, however, we will argue thus. The Holy Ghost must certainly be conceived of either as in the category of the Self-existent, or as in that of the things which are contemplated in another; of which classes those who are skilled in such matters call the one Substance and the other Accident. Now if He were an Accident, He would be an Activity of God, for what else, or of whom else, could He be, for surely this is what most avoids composition? And if He is an Activity, He will be effected, but will not effect and will cease to exist as soon as He has been effected, for this is the nature of an Activity. How is it then that He acts and says such and such things, and defines, and is grieved, and is angered, and has all the qualities which belong clearly to one that moves, and not to movement? But if He is a Substance and not an attribute of Substance, He will be conceived of either as a Creature of God, or as God. For anything between these two, whether having nothing in common with either, or a compound of both, not even they who invented the goat-stag could imagine. Now, if He is a creature, how do we believe in Him, how are we made perfect in Him? For it is not the same thing to believe IN a thing and to believe About it. The one belongs to Deity, the other to–anything. But if He is God, then He is neither a creature, nor a thing made, nor a fellow servant, nor any of these lowly appellations.

Here is the paragraph rewritten in clear, modern English:

Go ahead—the floor is yours. Fire away; make your argument. Either He is completely Unbegotten, or He is Begotten. If He is Unbegotten, then there are two unoriginated beings. If He is Begotten, you must make another distinction. He is begotten either by the Father or by the Son. If by the Father, then there are two Sons, and they are brothers. You can even make them twins if you want, or make one older and the other younger, since you're so fond of physical categories. But if by the Son, then someone will say we're looking at a grandson God, which couldn't be more absurd. For my part, though, if I saw the need for the distinction, I would acknowledge the facts without being afraid of the terms. Just because the Son is the Son in some higher sense (since we couldn't otherwise indicate that He is of God and consubstantial), it doesn't follow that all the terms from this lower world and our human relationships must be applied to the Godhead. Or perhaps by the same reasoning you'd consider our God to be male because He is called God and Father, and that Deity is feminine because of the grammatical gender of the word, and Spirit neuter because it has nothing to do with generation. But if you were foolish enough to say, like the old myths and fables, that God begot the Son through a marriage with His own Will, we would be introduced to the hermaphrodite god of Marcion and Valentinus who invented these strange aeons.

VII. There–the word is with you. Let the slings be let go; let the syllogism be woven. Either He is altogether Unbegotten, or else He is Begotten. If He is Unbegotten, there are two Unoriginates. If he is Begotten, you must make a further subdivision. He is so either by the Father or by the Son. And if by the Father, there are two Sons, and they are Brothers. And you may make them twins if you like, or the one older and the other younger, since you are so very fond of the bodily conceptions. But if by the Son, then such a one will say, we get a glimpse of a Grandson God, than which nothing could be more absurd. For my part however, if I saw the necessity of the distinction, I should have acknowledged the facts without fear of the names. For it does not follow that because the Son is the Son in some higher relation (inasmuch as we could not in any other way than this point out that He is of God and Consubstantial), it would also be necessary to think that all the names of this lower world and of our kindred should be transferred to the Godhead. Or maybe you would consider our God to be a male, according to the same arguments, because he is called God and Father, and that Deity is feminine, from the gender of the word, and Spirit neuter, because It has nothing to do with generation; But if you would be silly enough to say, with the old myths and fables, that God begot the Son by a marriage with His own Will, we should be introduced to the Hermaphrodite god of Marcion and Valentinus who imagined these newfangled Æons.

Since we don't accept your first division—which claims there's no middle ground between Begotten and Unbegotten—your Brothers and Grandsons immediately collapse along with your grand scheme. When the first link of a complicated chain breaks, everything connected to it breaks too and vanishes from your theological system. Tell me, where will you place that which Proceeds? This concept has appeared between the two terms of your division and was introduced by a better theologian than you—our Savior himself. Or have you perhaps removed that word from your Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament? The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Because He proceeds from that Source, He is not a creature. Because He is not begotten, He is not a Son. And because He exists between the Unbegotten and the Begotten, He is God. So, escaping the trap of your logical arguments, He has revealed himself as God, stronger than your divisions. What then is Procession? You tell me what the Unbegottenness of the Father is, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit. Then we'll both be mad for prying into God's mystery. And who are we to do these things? We can't even see what lies at our feet, or count the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity—much less enter into the Depths of God and give an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and beyond all words.

VIII. But since we do not admit your first division, which declares that there is no mean between Begotten and Unbegotten, at once, along with your magnificent division, away go your Brothers and your Grandsons, as when the first link of an intricate chain is broken they are broken with it, and disappear from your system of divinity. For, tell me, what position will you assign to that which Proceeds, which has started up between the two terms of your division, and is introduced by a better Theologian than you, our Saviour Himself? Or perhaps you have taken that word out of your Gospels for the sake of your Third Testament, The Holy Ghost, which proceeds from the Father; Who, inasmuch as He proceeds from That Source, is no Creature; and inasmuch as He is not Begotten is no Son; and inasmuch as He is between the Unbegotten and the Begotten is God. And thus escaping the toils of your syllogisms, He has manifested himself as God, stronger than your divisions. What then is Procession? Do you tell me what is the Unbegottenness of the Father, and I will explain to you the physiology of the Generation of the Son and the Procession of the Spirit, and we shall both of us be frenzy-stricken for prying into the mystery of God. And who are we to do these things, we who cannot even see what lies at our feet, or number the sand of the sea, or the drops of rain, or the days of Eternity, much less enter into the Depths of God, and supply an account of that Nature which is so unspeakable and transcending all words?

What then, they say, is lacking in the Spirit that prevents Him from being a Son? For if nothing were lacking, He would be a Son. We assert that nothing is lacking—for God has no deficiency. Rather, the difference in how they are manifested, if I may put it that way, or more precisely in their mutual relations to one another, has produced the difference in their names. Indeed, it is not some deficiency in the Son that prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father. Following this same reasoning, there must be some deficiency in the Father regarding His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to any deficiency or subordination of ousia. Rather, the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten or Proceeding has given the name Father to the First, Son to the Second, and to the Third—the One of whom we are speaking—the name Holy Spirit, so that the distinction of the three hypostases may be preserved in the one physis and dignity of the Godhead. For the Son is not Father, since the Father is one, but He is what the Father is. Nor is the Spirit Son because He is from God, since the Only-begotten is one, but He is what the Son is. The Three are one in Godhead, and the one is Three in properties, so that the Unity is not Sabellian, nor does the Trinity support the current heretical distinction.

IX. What then, say they, is there lacking to the Spirit which prevents His being a Son, for if there were not something lacking He would be a Son? We assert that there is nothing lacking–for God has no deficiency. But the difference of manifestation, if I may so express myself, or rather of their mutual relations one to another, has caused the difference of their Names. For indeed it is not some deficiency in the Son which prevents His being Father (for Sonship is not a deficiency), and yet He is not Father. According to this line of argument there must be some deficiency in the Father, in respect of His not being Son. For the Father is not Son, and yet this is not due to either deficiency or subjection of Essence; but the very fact of being Unbegotten or Begotten, or Proceeding has given the name of Father to the First, of the Son to the Second, and of the Third, Him of Whom we are speaking, of the Holy Ghost that the distinction of the Three Persons may be preserved in the one nature and dignity of the Godhead. For neither is the Son Father, for the Father is One, but He is what the Father is; nor is the Spirit Son because He is of God, for the Only-begotten is One, but He is what the Son is. The Three are One in Godhead, and the One Three in properties; so that neither is the Unity a Sabellian one, nor does the Trinity countenance the present evil distinction.

What then? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. Well then, is He Consubstantial? Yes, if He is God. My opponent says, "Grant me that there spring from the same Source One who is a Son, and One who is not a Son, and these of One ousia with the Source, and I admit a God and a God." No, if you will grant me that there is another God and another physis of God I will give you the same Trinity with the same name and facts. But since God is One and the Supreme Nature is One, how can I present to you the likeness? Or will you seek it again in lower regions and in your own surroundings? It is very shameful, and not only shameful, but very foolish, to take from things below a guess at things above, and from a fluctuating nature at the things that are unchanging, and as Isaiah says, to seek the Living among the dead. But yet I will try, for your sake, to give you some assistance for your argument, even from that source. I think I will pass over other points, though I might bring forward many from animal studies, some generally known, others only known to a few, of what nature has contrived with wonderful skill in connection with the generation of animals. For not only are likes said to beget likes, and things diverse to beget things diverse, but also likes to be begotten by things diverse, and things diverse by likes. And if we may believe the story, there is yet another mode of generation, when an animal is self-consumed and self-begotten. There are also creatures which depart in some way from their true natures, and undergo change and transformation from one creature into another, by a magnificence of nature. And indeed sometimes in the same species part may be generated and part not; and yet all of one ousia; which is more like our present subject. I will just mention one fact of our own nature which everyone knows, and then I will pass on to another part of the subject.

X. What then? Is the Spirit God? Most certainly. Well then, is He Consubstantial? Yes, if He is God. Grant me, says my opponent, that there spring from the same Source One who is a Son, and One who is not a Son, and these of One Substance with the Source, and I admit a God and a God. Nay, if you will grant me that there is another God and another nature of God I will give you the same Trinity with the same name and facts. But since God is One and the Supreme Nature is One, how can I present to you the Likeness? Or will you seek it again in lower regions and in your own surroundings? It is very shameful, and not only shameful, but very foolish, to take from things below a guess at things above, and from a fluctuating nature at the things that are unchanging, and as Isaiah says, to seek the Living among the dead. But yet I will try, for your sake, to give you some assistance for your argument, even from that source. I think I will pass over other points, though I might bring forward many from animal history, some generally known, others only known to a few, of what nature has contrived with wonderful art in connection with the generation of animals. For not only are likes said to beget likes, and things diverse to beget things diverse, but also likes to be begotten by things diverse, and things diverse by likes. And if we may believe the story, there is yet another mode of generation, when an animal is self-consumed and self-begotten. There are also creatures which depart in some sort from their true natures, and undergo change and transformation from one creature into another, by a magnificence of nature. And indeed sometimes in the same species part may be generated and part not; and yet all of one substance; which is more like our present subject. I will just mention one fact of our own nature which every one knows, and then I will pass on to another part of the subject.

What was Adam? A creature of God. What then was Eve? A fragment of the creature. And what was Seth? The begotten of both. Does it seem to you that creature and fragment and begotten are the same thing? Of course not. But were not these persons consubstantial? Of course they were. So here we have a clear case where different persons can have the same ousia. I say this not to attribute creation or division or any bodily property to the Godhead (don't let any of your word-fighters attack me again for this), but so that I may examine in these examples, as on a stage, things that can only be grasped by the mind. For it is impossible to trace out any image that corresponds exactly to the full extent of the truth. But they say, what is the point of all this? Isn't one an offspring and the other something else from the One? Didn't both Eve and Seth come from the one Adam? And were they both begotten by him? No—one was a fragment of him, and the other was begotten by him. And yet both were one and the same thing; both were human beings; no one will deny that. Will you then give up your argument against the Spirit, that He must be either entirely begotten or else cannot be consubstantial or be God, and admit from human examples that our position is possible? I think it would be good for you to do so, unless you are determined to be very quarrelsome and to fight against what has been demonstrated.

XI. What was Adam? A creature of God. What then was Eve? A fragment of the creature. And what was Seth? The begotten of both. Does it then seem to you that Creature and Fragment and Begotten are the same thing? Of course it does not. But were not these persons consubstantial? Of course they were. Well then, here it is an acknowledged fact that different persons may have the same substance. I say this, not that I would attribute creation or fraction or any property of body to the Godhead (let none of your contenders for a word be down upon me again), but that I may contemplate in these, as on a stage, things which are objects of thought alone. For it is not possible to trace out any image exactly to the whole extent of the truth. But, they say, what is the meaning of all this? For is not the one an offspring, and the other a something else of the One? Did not both Eve and Seth come from the one Adam? And were they both begotten by him? No; but the one was a fragment of him, and the other was begotten by him. And yet the two were one and the same thing; both were human beings; no one will deny that. Will you then give up your contention against the Spirit, that He must be either altogether begotten, or else cannot be consubstantial, or be God; and admit from human examples the possibility of our position? I think it will be well for you, unless you are determined to be very quarrelsome, and to fight against what is proved to demonstration.

But, he says, who in ancient or modern times ever worshipped the Spirit? Who ever prayed to him? Where is it written that we ought to worship him or to pray to him, and where have you gotten this teaching of yours? We will give the more complete explanation later, when we discuss what is unwritten. For now it is enough to say that it is in the Spirit that we worship and in the Spirit that we pray. For Scripture says, "God is a Spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in Spirit and in truth." And again, "We do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself makes intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered," and "I will pray with the Spirit and I will pray with the understanding also"—that is, in the mind and in the Spirit. Therefore, to adore or to pray to the Spirit seems to me to be simply the Spirit himself offering prayer or adoration to himself. And what godly or learned person would disapprove of this? For in fact the adoration of One is the adoration of the Three, because of the equality of honor and Deity among the Three. So I will not be frightened by the argument that all things are said to have been made by the Son, as if the Holy Spirit were also one of these things. For it says "all things that were made," not simply "all things." For the Father was not made, nor were any of the things that were not made. Prove that he was made, and then assign him to the Son and number him among the creatures. But until you can prove this, you will gain nothing for your impiety from this comprehensive phrase. For if he was made, it was certainly through Christ—I myself would not deny that. But if he was not made, how can he be either one of the "all things" or made through Christ? Stop dishonoring the Father in your opposition to the Only-begotten (for it is no real honor to present him with a creature while robbing him of what is more valuable, a Son), and stop dishonoring the Son in your opposition to the Spirit. For he is not the maker of a fellow servant, but he is glorified with one of co-equal honor. Do not rank any part of the Trinity with yourself, lest you fall away from the Trinity. Do not cut off from either the one and equally august nature, because if you overthrow any of the Three you will have overthrown the whole. Better to take a limited view of the Unity than to venture on a complete impiety.

XII. But, he says, who in ancient or modern times ever worshipped the Spirit? Who ever prayed to Him? Where is it written that we ought to worship Him, or to pray to Him, and whence have you derived this tenet of yours? We will give the more perfect reason hereafter, when we discuss the question of the unwritten; for the present it will suffice to say that it is the Spirit in Whom we worship, and in Whom we pray. For Scripture says, God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth. And again,–We know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit Itself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered; and I will pray with the Spirit and I will pray with the understanding also; –that is, in the mind and in the Spirit. Therefore to adore or to pray to the Spirit seems to me to be simply Himself offering prayer or adoration to Himself. And what godly or learned man would disapprove of this, because in fact the adoration of One is the adoration of the Three, because of the equality of honour and Deity between the Three? So I will not be frightened by the argument that all things are said to have been made by the Son; as if the Holy Spirit also were one of these things. For it says all things that were made, and not simply all things. For the Father was not, nor were any of the things that were not made. Prove that He was made, and then give Him to the Son, and number Him among the creatures; but until you can prove this you will gain nothing for your impiety from this comprehensive phrase. For if He was made, it was certainly through Christ; I myself would not deny that. But if He was not made, how can He be either one of the All, or through Christ? Cease then to dishonour the Father in your opposition to the Only-begotten (for it is no real honour, by presenting to Him a creature to rob Him of what is more valuable, a Son), and to dishonour the Son in your opposition to the Spirit. For He is not the Maker of a Fellow servant, but He is glorified with One of co-equal honour. Rank no part of the Trinity with yourself, lest thou fall away from the Trinity; cut not off from Either the One and equally august Nature; because if you overthrow any of the Three you will have overthrown the whole. Better to take a meagre view of the Unity than to venture on a complete impiety.

Our argument has now reached its main point. I am saddened that a problem which was long settled and had yielded to faith is now being raised again. Yet we must stand against these babblers and not allow judgment to go unopposed, since we have the Word on our side and are defending the cause of the Spirit. They say: if there is God and God and God, how is it that there are not three Gods, or how is it that what is glorified is not a plurality of first principles? Who are these people saying this? Those who have arrived at a more complete godlessness, or even those who have taken a halfway position—I mean those who are moderate in some sense regarding the Son. For my argument is directed partly against both groups together, and partly against these latter in particular. Here is what I say in response: What right have you who worship the Son, even though you have rejected the Spirit, to call us believers in three gods? Are you not believers in two gods? For if you also deny the worship of the Only Begotten, you have clearly aligned yourself with our opponents. And why should we treat you gently as if you were not entirely lost? But if you do worship Him and are thus far on the path of salvation, we will ask you what reasons you have to offer for your belief in two gods, if you are charged with it. If you have any wisdom in you, answer and open up a way of answering for us as well. For the very same reasoning you use to reject a charge of belief in two gods will be sufficient for us against a charge of belief in three gods. And in this way we will win our case by using you, our accusers, as our defenders—than which nothing could be more generous.

XIII. Our argument has now come to its principal point; and I am grieved that a problem that was long dead, and that had given way to faith, is now stirred up afresh; yet it is necessary to stand against these praters, and not to let judgment go by default, when we have the Word on our side, and are pleading the cause of the Spirit. If, say they, there is God and God and God, how is it that there are not Three Gods, or how is it that what is glorified is not a plurality of Principles? Who is it who say this? Those who have reached a more complete ungodliness, or even those who have taken the secondary part; I mean who are moderate in a sense in respect of the Son. For my argument is partly against both in common, partly against these latter in particular. What I have to say in answer to these is as follows:–What right have you who worship the Son, even though you have revolted from the Spirit, to call us Tritheists? Are not you Ditheists? For if you deny also the worship of the Only Begotten, you have clearly ranged yourself among our adversaries. And why should we deal kindly with you as not quite dead? But if you do worship Him, and are so far in the way of salvation, we will ask you what reasons you have to give for your ditheism, if you are charged with it? If there is in you a word of wisdom answer, and open to us also a way to an answer. For the very same reason with which you will repel a charge of Ditheism will prove sufficient for us against one of Tritheism. And thus we shall win the day by making use of you our accusers as our Advocates, than which nothing can be more generous.

XIV. What is our quarrel and dispute with both? For us there is One God, because the Godhead is One, and everything that proceeds from Him is referred back to One, though we believe in Three Persons. For one is not more God and another less God; nor is One before and another after; nor are They divided in will or separated in power; nor can you find here any of the qualities that belong to divisible things; but the Godhead is, to put it briefly, undivided in separate Persons; and there is one mingling of Light, like three suns joined to each other. So when we look at the Godhead, or the First Cause, or the Monarchia, what we conceive is One; but when we look at the Persons in whom the Godhead dwells, and at Those who timelessly and with equal glory have their Being from the First Cause—there are Three whom we worship.

XIV. What is our quarrel and dispute with both? To us there is One God, for the Godhead is One, and all that proceeds from Him is referred to One, though we believe in Three Persons. For one is not more and another less God; nor is One before and another after; nor are They divided in will or parted in power; nor can you find here any of the qualities of divisible things; but the Godhead is, to speak concisely, undivided in separate Persons; and there is one mingling of Light, as it were of three suns joined to each other. When then we look at the Godhead, or the First Cause, or the Monarchia, that which we conceive is One; but when we look at the Persons in Whom the Godhead dwells, and at Those Who timelessly and with equal glory have their Being from the First Cause–there are Three Whom we worship.

What about this, they might say: don't the Greeks also believe in one Godhead, as their more sophisticated philosophers claim? And humanity is one for us too—the entire human race—yet they have many gods, not One, just as there are many human beings. But in this case the shared nature has a unity that exists only in thought, and the individual persons are separated from each other by great distances in time, disposition, and power. For we are not only composite beings but also beings in conflict, both with one another and within ourselves. We don't even remain completely the same for a single day, let alone a whole lifetime, but are constantly flowing and changing in both body and soul. Perhaps the same could be said of the angels and all that higher nature which is second only to the Trinity, although they are to some degree simple and more firmly established in goodness because of their closeness to the highest Good.

XV. What of that, they will say perhaps; do not the Greeks also believe in one Godhead, as their more advanced philosophers declare? And with us Humanity is one, namely the entire race; but yet they have many gods, not One, just as there are many men. But in this case the common nature has a unity which is only conceivable in thought; and the individuals are parted from one another very far indeed, both by time and by dispositions and by power. For we are not only compound beings, but also contrasted beings, both with one another and with ourselves; nor do we remain entirely the same for a single day, to say nothing of a whole lifetime, but both in body and in soul are in a perpetual state of flow and change. And perhaps the same may be said of the Angels and the whole of that superior nature which is second to the Trinity alone; although they are simple in some measure and more fixed in good, owing to their nearness to the highest Good.

The gods the Greeks worship—and what they themselves call daemons—do not need us to accuse them. They are convicted by the testimony of their own theologians: some are described as subject to passion, some as given to factional strife, and filled with countless evils and changes. They are portrayed in opposition not only to one another but even to their first causes, whom they call Oceanus and Tethys and Phanes, among several other names. And last of all there is a certain god who hated his own children because of his lust for power, and swallowed them all up out of greed so that he might become the father of all men and gods—whom he miserably devoured and then vomited up again. And if these are merely myths and fables, as they claim in order to escape the shameful nature of the story, what will they say about the teaching that all things are divided into three parts, and that each god presides over a different part of the universe, having a distinct province as well as a distinct rank? But our faith is not like this, nor is this the portion of Jacob, says my Theologian. Rather, each of these Persons possesses unity with that which is united to it no less than with itself, because of the identity of ousia and power. This is our account of the unity, as far as we have grasped it. If this account is the true one, let us thank God for the glimpse He has granted us; if it is not, let us seek for a better.

XVI. Nor do those whom the Greeks worship as gods, and (to use their own expression) dæmons, need us in any respect for their accusers, but are convicted upon the testimony of their own theologians, some as subject to passion, some as given to faction, and full of innumerable evils and changes, and in a state of opposition, not only to one another, but even to their first causes, whom they call Oceani and Tethyes and Phanetes, and by several other names; and last of all a certain god who hated his children through his lust of rule, and swallowed up all the rest through his greediness that he might become the father of all men and gods whom he miserably devoured, and then vomited forth again. And if these are but myths and fables, as they say in order to escape the shamefulness of the story, what will they say in reference to the dictum that all things are divided into three parts, and that each god presides over a different part of the Universe, having a distinct province as well as a distinct rank? But our faith is not like this, nor is this the portion of Jacob, says my Theologian. But each of these Persons possesses Unity, not less with that which is United to it than with itself, by reason of the identity of Essence and Power. And this is the account of the Unity, so far as we have apprehended it. If then this account is the true one, let us thank God for the glimpse He has granted us; if it is not let us seek for a better.

As for the arguments with which you would overthrow the Union we support, I do not know whether to say you are joking or serious. For what kind of argument is this? Things of one essence, you say, are counted together, and by "counted together" you mean they are collected into one number. But things which are not of one essence are not counted this way—so that you cannot avoid speaking of three gods, according to this reasoning, while we run no risk of it at all, since we assert that they are not consubstantial. And so with a single word you have freed yourselves from trouble and gained a destructive victory, for in fact you have done something like what people do when they hang themselves for fear of death. For in order to save yourselves trouble in defending the Monarchia, you have denied the Godhead and abandoned the question to your opponents. But for my part, even if labor is necessary, I will not abandon the Object of my adoration. And yet on this point I cannot see where the difficulty is.

XVII. As for the arguments with which you would overthrow the Union which we support, I know not whether we should say you are jesting or in earnest. For what is this argument? Things of one essence, you say, are counted together, and by this counted together, you mean that they are collected into one number. But things which are not of one essence are not thus counted…so that you cannot avoid speaking of three gods, according to this account, while we do not run any risk at all of it, inasmuch as we assert that they are not consubstantial. And so by a single word you have freed yourselves from trouble, and have gained a pernicious victory, for in fact you have done something like what men do when they hang themselves for fear of death. For to save yourselves trouble in your championship of the Monarchia you have denied the Godhead, and abandoned the question to your opponents. But for my part, even if labor should be necessary, I will not abandon the Object of my adoration. And yet on this point I cannot see where the difficulty is.

You say that things of one essence are counted together, but things that are not consubstantial are reckoned one by one. Where did you get this idea from? From what teachers of doctrine or mythology? Don't you realize that every number expresses the quantity of what is included under it, not the nature of the things themselves? But I am so old-fashioned, or perhaps I should say so unlearned, as to use the word "three" for that number of things, even if they differ in nature, and to use "one and one and one" in a different way for so many units, even if they are united in ousia, looking not so much at the things themselves as at the quantity of the things being counted. But since you hold so very closely to the letter (although you are arguing against the letter), please take your proofs from this source. There are in the Book of Proverbs three things which go well—a lion, a goat, and a rooster—and to these is added a fourth, a king making a speech before the people. I'm passing over the other sets of four that are counted up there, even though they are things of various natures. And I find in Moses two Cherubim counted individually. But now, according to your terminology, could the former things be called three, when they differ so greatly in their nature, or could the latter be treated as units when they are so closely connected and of one nature? For if I were to speak of God and Mammon as two masters, reckoned under one heading, when they are so very different from each other, I would probably be laughed at even more for such a way of counting together.

XVIII. You say, Things of one essence are counted together, but those which are not consubstantial are reckoned one by one. Where did you get this from? From what teachers of dogma or mythology? Do you not know that every number expresses the quantity of what is included under it, and not the nature of the things? But I am so old fashioned, or perhaps I should say so unlearned, as to use the word Three of that number of things, even if they are of a different nature, and to use One and One and One in a different way of so many units, even if they are united in essence, looking not so much at the things themselves as at the quantity of the things in respect of which the enumeration is made. But since you hold so very close to the letter (although you are contending against the letter), pray take your demonstrations from this source. There are in the Book of Proverbs three things which go well, a lion, a goat, and a cock; and to these is added a fourth;–a King making a speech before the people, to pass over the other sets of four which are there counted up, although things of various natures. And I find in Moses two Cherubim counted singly. But now, in your technology, could either the former things be called three, when they differ so greatly in their nature, or the latter be treated as units when they are so closely connected and of one nature? For if I were to speak of God and Mammon, as two masters, reckoned under one head, when they are so very different from each other, I should probably be still more laughed at for such a connumeration.

But in my view, he says, those things are said to be counted together and of the same ousia whose names also correspond, as Three Men or Three gods, but not Three this and that. What does this concession amount to? It suits someone laying down the law about names, not someone asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters or Three Jameses or Three Johns. For what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement—or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has dared to count under one number things which are not consubstantial, though you say this should be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would say that these are consubstantial? Second, because he has not been consistent in the way he has used his terms—for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself reject in the case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one ousia? No one but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from counting together has broken down and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one ousia are not always counted under one number, and things not of one ousia are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?

XIX. But to my mind, he says, those things are said to be connumerated and of the same essence of which the names also correspond, as Three Men, or Three gods, but not Three this and that. What does this concession amount to? It is suitable to one laying down the law as to names, not to one who is asserting the truth. For I also will assert that Peter and James and John are not three or consubstantial, so long as I cannot say Three Peters, or Three Jameses, or Three Johns; for what you have reserved for common names we demand also for proper names, in accordance with your arrangement; or else you will be unfair in not conceding to others what you assume for yourself. What about John then, when in his Catholic Epistle he says that there are Three that bear witness, the Spirit and the Water and the Blood? Do you think he is talking nonsense? First, because he has ventured to reckon under one numeral things which are not consubstantial, though you say this ought to be done only in the case of things which are consubstantial. For who would assert that these are consubstantial? Secondly, because he has not been consistent in the way he has happened upon his terms; for after using Three in the masculine gender he adds three words which are neuter, contrary to the definitions and laws which you and your grammarians have laid down. For what is the difference between putting a masculine Three first, and then adding One and One and One in the neuter, or after a masculine One and One and One to use the Three not in the masculine but in the neuter, which you yourself disclaim in the case of Deity? What have you to say about the Crab, which may mean either an animal, or an instrument, or a constellation? And what about the Dog, now terrestrial, now aquatic, now celestial? Do you not see that three crabs or dogs are spoken of? Why of course it is so. Well then, are they therefore of one substance? None but a fool would say that. So you see how completely your argument from connumeration has broken down, and is refuted by all these instances. For if things that are of one substance are not always counted under one numeral, and things not of one substance are thus counted, and the pronunciation of the name once for all is used in both cases, what advantage do you gain towards your doctrine?

I will also look at this additional point, which is relevant to our discussion. One and one added together make two, and two divided again becomes one and one—this is perfectly clear. However, if elements that are added together must be consubstantial (as your theory demands), and those that are separate must be heterogeneous, then it follows that the same things must be both consubstantial and heterogeneous. No, I laugh at your "counting before" and your "counting after," which you take such pride in, as if the actual facts depended on the order of the names. If this were true, then by the same logic—since the same things are counted in Holy Scripture sometimes in an earlier place and sometimes in a later place because of the equality of their nature—what would prevent them from being both more honorable and less honorable than themselves? I say the same thing about the names "God" and "Lord," and about the prepositions "of whom," "by whom," and "in whom," which you use to describe the Deity for us according to technical rules, assigning the first to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit. What would you have done if each of these expressions were consistently assigned to each person? The fact is that they are used of all the persons, as is clear to those who have studied the question, yet even so you make them the basis for such inequality of both nature and dignity. This is enough for anyone who has any sense at all. But since it is difficult for you, once you have attacked the Spirit, to stop your assault—and you are instead like a wild boar pushing your quarrel to the bitter end and throwing yourself on the knife until you have taken the entire wound in your own chest—let us continue to see what further argument you have left.

XX. I will look also at this further point, which is not without its bearing on the subject. One and One added together make Two; and Two resolved again becomes One and One, as is perfectly evident. If, however, elements which are added together must, as your theory requires, be consubstantial, and those which are separate be heterogeneous, then it will follow that the same things must be both consubstantial and heterogeneous. No: I laugh at your Counting Before and your Counting After, of which you are so proud, as if the facts themselves depended upon the order of their names. If this were so, according to the same law, since the same things are in consequence of the equality of their nature counted in Holy Scripture, sometimes in an earlier, sometimes in a later place, what prevents them from being at once more honourable and less honourable than themselves? I say the same of the names God and Lord, and of the prepositions Of Whom, and By Whom, and In Whom, by which you describe the Deity according to the rules of art for us, attributing the first to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Ghost. For what would you have done, if each of these expressions were constantly allotted to Each Person, when, the fact being that they are used of all the Persons, as is evident to those who have studied the question, you even so make them the ground of such inequality both of nature and dignity. This is sufficient for all who are not altogether wanting in sense. But since it is a matter of difficulty for you after you have once made an assault upon the Spirit, to check your rush, and not rather like a furious boar to push your quarrel to the bitter end, and to thrust yourself upon the knife until you have received the whole wound in your own breast; let us go on to see what further argument remains to you.

Over and over again you throw at us the silence of Scripture. But that this is not a strange doctrine or an afterthought, but rather something acknowledged and plainly set forth both by the ancients and by many in our own time, has already been demonstrated by many people who have treated this subject and who have handled the Holy Scriptures—not carelessly or as a mere pastime, but going beneath the letter and looking into the inner meaning. They have been counted worthy to see the hidden beauty and have been illuminated by the light of knowledge. However, we in our turn will briefly prove it as far as we can, so as not to seem overly curious or improperly ambitious by building on another's foundation. But since the fact that Scripture does not very clearly or very often call Him God in explicit words (as it does first the Father and afterwards the Son) becomes for you an occasion for blasphemy and this excessive wordiness and impiety, we will free you from this problem by a short discussion of things and names, and especially of their use in Holy Scripture.

XXI. Over and over again you turn upon us the silence of Scripture. But that it is not a strange doctrine, nor an afterthought, but acknowledged and plainly set forth both by the ancients and many of our own day, is already demonstrated by many persons who have treated of this subject, and who have handled the Holy Scriptures, not with indifference or as a mere pastime, but have gone beneath the letter and looked into the inner meaning, and have been deemed worthy to see the hidden beauty, and have been irradiated by the light of knowledge. We, however in our turn will briefly prove it as far as may be, in order not to seem to be over-curious or improperly ambitious, building on another's foundation. But since the fact, that Scripture does not very clearly or very often write Him God in express words (as it does first the Father and afterwards the Son), becomes to you an occasion of blasphemy and of this excessive wordiness and impiety, we will release you from this inconvenience by a short discussion of things and names, and especially of their use in Holy Scripture.

Some things do not exist but are spoken of; others exist but are not spoken of; some neither exist nor are spoken of, and some both exist and are spoken of. Do you want me to prove this? I'm ready to do so. According to Scripture, God sleeps and wakes, is angry, walks, and has the Cherubim as His throne. But when did He become subject to emotion, and have you ever heard that God has a body? This, then, is not actually fact but a figure of speech. We have applied names drawn from our own nature and understanding to describe God's attributes. His remaining silent and distant from us, and seemingly not caring for us for reasons known to Himself, is what we call His sleeping, because our own sleep is a state of inactivity. And again, His sudden turning to do us good is waking up, because waking is the end of sleep, just as divine visitation is the end of His turning away. When He punishes, we say He is angry, because for us punishment results from anger. His working, now in one place and now in another, we call walking, because walking is moving from one place to another. His resting among the holy hosts, and seemingly delighting to dwell among them, is His sitting and being enthroned—this too we derive from ourselves, for God rests nowhere as He does upon the saints. His swift movement is called flying, His watchful care is called His face, His giving and bestowing is His hand, and in short, every other power or activity of God has been depicted for us through some bodily image.

XXII. Some things have no existence, but are spoken of; others which do exist are not spoken of; some neither exist nor are spoken of, and some both exist and are spoken of. Do you ask me for proof of this? I am ready to give it. According to Scripture God sleeps and is awake, is angry, walks, has the Cherubim for His Throne. And yet when did He become liable to passion, and have you ever heard that God has a body? This then is, though not really fact, a figure of speech. For we have given names according to our own comprehension from our own attributes to those of God. His remaining silent apart from us, and as it were not caring for us, for reasons known to Himself, is what we call His sleeping; for our own sleep is such a state of inactivity. And again, His sudden turning to do us good is the waking up; for waking is the dissolution of sleep, as visitation is of turning away. And when He punishes, we say He is angry; for so it is with us, punishment is the result of anger. And His working, now here now there, we call walking; for walking is change from one place to another. His resting among the Holy Hosts, and as it were loving to dwell among them, is His sitting and being enthroned; this, too, from ourselves, for God rests nowhere as He does upon the Saints. His swiftness of moving is called flying, and His watchful care is called His Face, and his giving and bestowing is His hand; and, in a word, every other of the powers or activities of God has depicted for us some other corporeal one.

Again, where do you get your terms "Unbegotten" and "Unoriginate"—those two strongholds of your position—or where do we get our term "Immortal"? Show me these exact words in Scripture, or we will either set them aside or erase them as not found in Scripture. Then you would be defeated by your own principle, since the names you depend on would be overthrown, along with the defensive wall you trusted in. Isn't it clear that these terms come from passages that imply them, even though the actual words don't appear? What are these passages? "I am the first, and I am the last, and before Me there was no God, neither shall there be after Me." Everything that depends on that "Am" supports my position, because it has neither beginning nor ending. When you accept that nothing exists before Him and that He has no older cause, you have implicitly granted Him the titles "Unbegotten" and "Unoriginate." And to say that He has no end of being is to call Him "Immortal" and "Indestructible." So the first pairs I mentioned are explained this way. But what are the things that neither exist in reality nor are spoken of? That God is evil; that a sphere is square; that the past is present; that man is not a compound being. Have you ever known anyone so foolish as to dare either to think or to claim any such thing? It remains to show what things both exist in reality and are spoken of: God, Man, Angel, Judgment, Vanity (namely, arguments like yours), and the undermining of faith and emptying of the mystery.

XXIII. Again, where do you get your Unbegotten and Unoriginate, those two citadels of your position, or we our Immortal? Show me these in so many words, or we shall either set them aside, or erase them as not contained in Scripture; and you are slain by your own principle, the names you rely on being overthrown, and therewith the wall of refuge in which you trusted. Is it not evident that they are due to passages which imply them, though the words do not actually occur? What are these passages?–I am the first, and I am the last, and before Me there was no God, neither shall there be after Me. For all that depends on that Am makes for my side, for it has neither beginning nor ending. When you accept this, that nothing is before Him, and that He has not an older Cause, you have implicitly given Him the titles Unbegotten and Unoriginate. And to say that He has no end of Being is to call Him Immortal and Indestructible. The first pairs, then, that I referred to are accounted for thus. But what are the things which neither exist in fact nor are said? That God is evil; that a sphere is square; that the past is present; that man is not a compound being. Have you ever known a man of such stupidity as to venture either to think or to assert any such thing? It remains to show what are the things which exist, both in fact and in language. God, Man, Angel, Judgment, Vanity (viz., such arguments as yours), and the subversion of faith and emptying of the mystery.

Since there is so much difference between terms and things, why are you such a slave to the letter, a partisan of Jewish wisdom, and a follower of syllables at the expense of realities? If I said twice five or twice seven and you concluded from my words that I meant ten or fourteen, or if when you spoke of a rational and mortal animal I understood you to mean man, would you think I was talking nonsense? Surely not, because I would merely be repeating your own meaning. Words do not belong more to the person who speaks them than to the person who prompted them. Just as in this case I would be looking not so much at the terms used but at the thoughts they convey, so too if I found something else either not at all or not clearly expressed in the words of Scripture to be included in the meaning, I would not avoid giving it expression out of fear of your sophisticated wordplay about terms. In this way, then, we shall hold our own against the semi-orthodox—among whom I may not count you. Since you deny the titles of the Son, which are so many and so clear, it is quite evident that even if you learned many more and clearer ones you would not be moved to reverence. But now I will take up the argument again from a bit further back and show you, clever as you are, the reason for this entire system of secrecy.

XXIV. Since, then, there is so much difference in terms and things, why are you such a slave to the letter, and a partisan of the Jewish wisdom, and a follower of syllables at the expense of facts? But if, when you said twice five or twice seven, I concluded from your words that you meant Ten or Fourteen; or if, when you spoke of a rational and mortal animal, that you meant Man, should you think me to be talking nonsense? Surely not, because I should be merely repeating your own meaning; for words do not belong more to the speaker of them than to him who called them forth. As, then, in this case, I should have been looking, not so much at the terms used, as at the thoughts they were meant to convey; so neither, if I found something else either not at all or not clearly expressed in the Words of Scripture to be included in the meaning, should I avoid giving it utterance, out of fear of your sophistical trick about terms. In this way, then, we shall hold our own against the semi-orthodox–among whom I may not count you. For since you deny the Titles of the Son, which are so many and so clear, it is quite evident that even if you learnt a great many more and clearer ones you would not be moved to reverence. But now I will take up the argument again a little way further back, and show you, though you are so clever, the reason for this entire system of secresy.

Throughout the entire period of human history, there have been two major transformations in how people lived, which are also called two Testaments or, because of their widespread significance, two Earthquakes. The first moved people from idols to the Law, the second from the Law to the Gospel. And the Gospel teaches us about a third earthquake, which is from this world to the one that cannot be shaken or moved. The two Testaments are similar in this way: the change did not happen suddenly or at the first attempt. Why not? We need to understand this point. It was so that we would not be forced, but rather persuaded to change. Nothing that is forced lasts, like streams or trees held back by force. But what is voluntary is more lasting and secure. The forced option belongs to whoever uses force, while the voluntary one is truly ours. One comes from God's gentleness, the other from tyrannical power. Therefore, God did not think it right to help people against their will, but to do good to those who are willing. So like a teacher or doctor, He partly removed and partly permitted ancestral customs, allowing some small things that gave pleasure, just as doctors do with their patients so they will take their medicine by cleverly mixing it with something pleasant. It is not easy to change habits that tradition and practice have made respectable. For example, the first Testament cut off idol worship but allowed sacrifices to continue. The second abolished sacrifices but did not forbid circumcision. Then, once people had accepted these initial restrictions, they also gave up what had been permitted to them—first the sacrifices, then circumcision. They became Jews instead of Gentiles, and Christians instead of Jews, being gradually led into the Gospel through these incremental changes. Paul proves this point, for at one time he practiced circumcision and followed legal purification, but he progressed until he could say, "Brothers, if I still preach circumcision, why am I still persecuted?" His earlier actions belonged to the temporary arrangement, his later ones to maturity.

XXV. There have been in the whole period of the duration of the world two conspicuous changes of men's lives, which are also called two Testaments, or, on account of the wide fame of the matter, two Earthquakes; the one from idols to the Law, the other from the Law to the Gospel. And we are taught in the Gospel of a third earthquake, namely, from this Earth to that which cannot be shaken or moved. Now the two Testaments are alike in this respect, that the change was not made on a sudden, nor at the first movement of the endeavour. Why not (for this is a point on which we must have information)? That no violence might be done to us, but that we might be moved by persuasion. For nothing that is involuntary is durable; like streams or trees which are kept back by force. But that which is voluntary is more durable and safe. The former is due to one who uses force, the latter is ours; the one is due to the gentleness of God, the other to a tyrannical authority. Wherefore God did not think it behooved Him to benefit the unwilling, but to do good to the willing. And therefore like a Tutor or Physician He partly removes and partly condones ancestral habits, conceding some little of what tended to pleasure, just as medical men do with their patients, that their medicine may be taken, being artfully blended with what is nice. For it is no very easy matter to change from those habits which custom and use have made honourable. For instance, the first cut off the idol, but left the sacrifices; the second, while it destroyed the sacrifices did not forbid circumcision. Then, when once men had submitted to the curtailment, they also yielded that which had been conceded to them; in the first instance the sacrifices, in the second circumcision; and became instead of Gentiles, Jews, and instead of Jews, Christians, being beguiled into the Gospel by gradual changes. Paul is a proof of this; for having at one time administered circumcision, and submitted to legal purification, he advanced till he could say, and I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? His former conduct belonged to the temporary dispensation, his latter to maturity.

In this case I may compare the situation of theology, except that it works in the opposite direction. In the illustration I just used, the change happened through successive subtractions, but here perfection is reached through additions. Here is how it works. The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly but the Son more obscurely. The New Testament revealed the Son and hinted at the deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit himself dwells among us and gives us a clearer demonstration of himself. It was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, to openly proclaim the Son. Nor was it safe, when the Son's deity was not yet accepted, to burden us further—if I may use such a bold expression—with the Holy Spirit. Otherwise people might, like those fed beyond their strength or like those with eyes too weak to look at the sun's light, risk losing even what was within their capacity. Instead, through gradual additions and, as David says, ascents and advances and progress from glory to glory, the light of the Trinity would shine on those who were becoming more enlightened. For this reason, I believe, the Spirit gradually came to dwell in the disciples, measuring himself out to them according to their capacity to receive him—at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension—perfecting their powers by being breathed upon them and appearing in fiery tongues. Indeed, Jesus declared him little by little, as you will learn if you read more carefully. "I will ask the Father," he says, "and he will send you another Comforter, even the Spirit of Truth." He said this so he would not seem to be a rival God or to speak to them by another authority. Again, "He shall send him," but "in my Name." He leaves out "I will ask" but keeps "shall send," then again, "I will send"—his own dignity. Then "shall come"—the authority of the Spirit.

XXVI. To this I may compare the case of Theology except that it proceeds the reverse way. For in the case by which I have illustrated it the change is made by successive subtractions; whereas here perfection is reached by additions. For the matter stands thus. The Old Testament proclaimed the Father openly, and the Son more obscurely. The New manifested the Son, and suggested the Deity of the Spirit. Now the Spirit Himself dwells among us, and supplies us with a clearer demonstration of Himself. For it was not safe, when the Godhead of the Father was not yet acknowledged, plainly to proclaim the Son; nor when that of the Son was not yet received to burden us further (if I may use so bold an expression) with the Holy Ghost; lest perhaps people might, like men loaded with food beyond their strength, and presenting eyes as yet too weak to bear it to the sun's light, risk the loss even of that which was within the reach of their powers; but that by gradual additions, and, as David says, Goings up, and advances and progress from glory to glory, the Light of the Trinity might shine upon the more illuminated. For this reason it was, I think, that He gradually came to dwell in the Disciples, measuring Himself out to them according to their capacity to receive Him, at the beginning of the Gospel, after the Passion, after the Ascension, making perfect their powers, being breathed upon them, and appearing in fiery tongues. And indeed it is little by little that He is declared by Jesus, as you will learn for yourself if you will read more carefully. I will ask the Father, He says, and He will send you another Comforter, even the spirit of Truth. This He said that He might not seem to be a rival God, or to make His discourses to them by another authority. Again, He shall send Him, but it is in My Name. He leaves out the I will ask, but He keeps the Shall send, then again, I will send,–His own dignity. Then shall come, the authority of the Spirit.

You see lights breaking upon us gradually, and there is an order to theology which we should keep—neither proclaiming things too suddenly nor keeping them hidden until the end. The first approach would be unscientific, the second atheistical. The first would shock outsiders, the second would alienate our own people. I will add another point to what I have said, one which may have occurred to others but which I believe is a fruit of my own thinking. Our Savior had some things which He said could not be borne at that time by His disciples, even though they were filled with many teachings—perhaps for the reasons I have mentioned—and therefore these things were hidden. And again He said that all things would be taught to us by the Spirit when He came to dwell among us. One of these things, I believe, was the Deity of the Spirit Himself, made clear later when such knowledge would be timely and able to be received after our Savior's resurrection, when it would no longer be met with disbelief because of its marvelous character. For what greater thing than this did He either promise, or the Spirit teach—if indeed anything is to be considered great and worthy of the Majesty of God, which was either promised or taught?

XXVII. You see lights breaking upon us, gradually; and the order of Theology, which it is better for us to keep, neither proclaiming things too suddenly, nor yet keeping them hidden to the end. For the former course would be unscientific, the latter atheistical; and the former would be calculated to startle outsiders, the latter to alienate our own people. I will add another point to what I have said; one which may readily have come into the mind of some others, but which I think a fruit of my own thought. Our Saviour had some things which, He said, could not be borne at that time by His disciples (though they were filled with many teachings), perhaps for the reasons I have mentioned; and therefore they were hidden. And again He said that all things should be taught us by the Spirit when He should come to dwell amongst us. Of these things one, I take it, was the Deity of the Spirit Himself, made clear later on when such knowledge should be seasonable and capable of being received after our Saviour's restoration, when it would no longer be received with incredulity because of its marvellous character. For what greater thing than this did either He promise, or the Spirit teach. If indeed anything is to be considered great and worthy of the Majesty of God, which was either promised or taught.

This, then, is my position on these things, and I hope it will always be my position and that of everyone dear to me: to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit—three prosopa, one Godhead, undivided in honor and glory and ousia and kingdom, as one of our own inspired philosophers who recently departed demonstrated. Let anyone who thinks otherwise, or who follows the mood of the times, being of one mind at one time and of another at another, and thinking wrongly about the highest matters, not see the rising of the morning star, as Scripture says, nor the glory of its brightness. For if He is not to be worshiped, how can He deify me through baptism? But if He is to be worshiped, surely He is an object of worship, and if an object of worship He must be God; the one is linked to the other, a truly golden and saving chain. And indeed from the Spirit comes our new birth, and from the new birth our new creation, and from the new creation our deeper knowledge of the dignity of Him from whom it is derived.

XXVIII. This, then, is my position with regard to these things, and I hope it may be always my position, and that of whosoever is dear to me; to worship God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, Three Persons, One Godhead, undivided in honour and glory and substance and kingdom, as one of our own inspired philosophers not long departed showed. Let him not see the rising of the Morning Star, as Scripture says, nor the glory of its brightness, who is otherwise minded, or who follows the temper of the times, at one time being of one mind and of another at another time, and thinking unsoundly in the highest matters. For if He is not to be worshipped, how can He deify me by Baptism? But if He is to be worshipped, surely He is an Object of adoration, and if an Object of adoration He must be God; the one is linked to the other, a truly golden and saving chain. And indeed from the Spirit comes our New Birth, and from the New Birth our new creation, and from the new creation our deeper knowledge of the dignity of Him from Whom it is derived.

This is what someone can say who accepts the silence of Scripture on this matter. But now a flood of testimonies will come upon you, from which the Deity of the Holy Spirit will be shown—to all who are not extremely foolish or complete enemies of the Spirit—to be most clearly recognized in Scripture. Consider these facts: Christ is born; the Spirit is his forerunner. He is baptized; the Spirit bears witness. He is tempted; the Spirit leads him up. He works miracles; the Spirit accompanies them. He ascends; the Spirit takes his place. What great things that belong to the idea of God are not within his power? What titles that belong to God are not applied to him, except only Unbegotten and Begotten? For it was necessary that the distinctive properties of the Father and the Son remain unique to them, so there would be no confusion in the Godhead which brings all things, even disorder itself, into proper arrangement and good order. Indeed, I tremble when I think of the abundance of titles, and how many Names those who attack the Spirit are outraging. He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Mind of Christ, the Spirit of the Lord, and himself the Lord, the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty; the Spirit of Wisdom, of Understanding, of Counsel, of Might, of Knowledge, of Godliness, of the Fear of God. For he is the Maker of all these, filling all with his essence (ousia), containing all things, filling the world in his essence (ousia), yet incapable of being comprehended in his power by the world; good, upright, princely by nature not by adoption; sanctifying, not sanctified; measuring, not measured; shared, not sharing; filling, not filled; containing, not contained; inherited, glorified, reckoned with the Father and the Son; held out as a threat; the Finger of God; fire like God (to manifest, as I understand it, his consubstantiality); the Creator-Spirit, who by Baptism and by Resurrection creates anew; the Spirit who knows all things, who teaches, who blows where and to whatever extent he wishes; who guides, speaks, sends forth, separates, is angry or tempted; who reveals, illumines, gives life, or rather is the very Light and Life; who makes Temples; who deifies; who perfects so as even to anticipate Baptism, yet after Baptism to be sought as a separate gift; who does all things that God does; divided into fiery tongues; dividing gifts; making Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers; understanding manifold, clear, piercing, undefiled, unhindered, which is the same as most wise and varied in his actions; and making all things clear and plain; and of independent power, unchangeable, Almighty, all-seeing, penetrating all spirits that are intelligent, pure, most subtle (the Angel hosts, I think); and also all prophetic spirits and apostolic in the same manner but not in the same places, for they lived in different places—thus showing that he is uncircumscribed.

XXIX. This, then, is what may be said by one who admits the silence of Scripture. But now the swarm of testimonies shall burst upon you from which the Deity of the Holy Ghost shall be shown to all who are not excessively stupid, or else altogether enemies to the Spirit, to be most clearly recognized in Scripture. Look at these facts:–Christ is born; the Spirit is His Forerunner. He is baptized; the Spirit bears witness. He is tempted; the Spirit leads Him up. He works miracles; the Spirit accompanies them. He ascends; the Spirit takes His place. What great things are there in the idea of God which are not in His power? What titles which belong to God are not applied to Him, except only Unbegotten and Begotten? For it was needful that the distinctive properties of the Father and the Son should remain peculiar to Them, lest there should be confusion in the Godhead Which brings all things, even disorder itself, into due arrangement and good order. Indeed I tremble when I think of the abundance of the titles, and how many Names they outrage who fall foul of the Spirit. He is called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the Mind of Christ, the Spirit of The Lord, and Himself The Lord, the Spirit of Adoption, of Truth, of Liberty; the Spirit of Wisdom, of Understanding, of Counsel, of Might, of Knowledge, of Godliness, of the Fear of God. For He is the Maker of all these, filling all with His Essence, containing all things, filling the world in His Essence, yet incapable of being comprehended in His power by the world; good, upright, princely, by nature not by adoption; sanctifying, not sanctified; measuring, not measured; shared, not sharing; filling, not filled; containing, not contained; inherited, glorified, reckoned with the Father and the Son; held out as a threat; the Finger of God; fire like God; to manifest, as I take it, His consubstantiality); the Creator-Spirit, Who by Baptism and by Resurrection creates anew; the Spirit That knows all things, That teaches, That blows where and to what extent He lists; That guides, talks, sends forth, separates, is angry or tempted; That reveals, illumines, quickens, or rather is the very Light and Life; That makes Temples; That deifies; That perfects so as even to anticipate Baptism, yet after Baptism to be sought as a separate gift; That does all things that God does; divided into fiery tongues; dividing gifts; making Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, and Teachers; understanding manifold, clear, piercing, undefiled, unhindered, which is the same thing as Most wise and varied in His actions; and making all things clear and plain; and of independent power, unchangeable, Almighty, all-seeing, penetrating all spirits that are intelligent, pure, most subtle (the Angel Hosts I think); and also all prophetic spirits and apostolic in the same manner and not in the same places; for they lived in different places; thus showing that He is uncircumscript.

Those who say and teach these things, and who moreover call Him another Paraclete in the sense of another God, who know that blasphemy against Him alone cannot be forgiven, and who branded Ananias and Sapphira with such fearful infamy for having lied to the Holy Spirit—what do you think of these men? Do they proclaim the Spirit to be God, or something else? Really, you must be extraordinarily dull and far from the Spirit if you have any doubt about this and need someone to teach you. So important and so vivid are His names. Why is it necessary to lay before you the testimony contained in the very words? And whatever is said in more lowly fashion in this case as well—such as that He is Given, Sent, Divided; that He is the Gift, the Bounty, the Inspiration, the Promise, the Intercession for us, and any other expressions of this sort, not to go into further detail—is to be referred to the First Cause, so that it may be shown from Whom He is, and so that people may not in heathen fashion admit three Principles. For it is equally impious to confuse the Persons with the Sabellians, or to divide the Natures with the Arians.

XXX. They who say and teach these things, and moreover call Him another Paraclete in the sense of another God, who know that blasphemy against Him alone cannot be forgiven, and who branded with such fearful infamy Ananias and Sapphira for having lied to the Holy Ghost, what do you think of these men? Do they proclaim the Spirit God, or something else? Now really, you must be extraordinarily dull and far from the Spirit if you have any doubt about this and need some one to teach you. So important then, and so vivid are His Names. Why is it necessary to lay before you the testimony contained in the very words? And whatever in this case also is said in more lowly fashion, as that He is Given, Sent, Divided; that He is the Gift, the Bounty, the Inspiration, the Promise, the Intercession for us, and, not to go into any further detail, any other expressions of the sort, is to be referred to the First Cause, that it may be shown from Whom He is, and that men may not in heathen fashion admit Three Principles. For it is equally impious to confuse the Persons with the Sabellians, or to divide the Natures with the Arians.

I have thought about this matter very carefully and examined it from every angle, trying to find some illustration of this crucial subject. But I have been unable to discover anything on earth that can be compared to the nature of the Godhead. Even when I did find some small similarity, it mostly slipped away from me and left me stuck down here with my example. I imagined an eye, a fountain, and a river—as others have done before me—to see whether the first might correspond to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Spirit. In these there is no separation in time, and they are not torn apart from their connection with each other, even though they seem to be divided into three distinct forms. But I was worried, first of all, that I would be presenting a Godhead that flows and cannot stand still. Second, I was concerned that this illustration would suggest a merely numerical unity. For the eye, the spring, and the river are numerically one thing, even though they appear in different forms.

XXXI. I have very carefully considered this matter in my own mind, and have looked at it in every point of view, in order to find some illustration of this most important subject, but I have been unable to discover anything on earth with which to compare the nature of the Godhead. For even if I did happen upon some tiny likeness it escaped me for the most part, and left me down below with my example. I picture to myself an eye, a fountain, a river, as others have done before, to see if the first might be analogous to the Father, the second to the Son, and the third to the Holy Ghost. For in these there is no distinction in time, nor are they torn away from their connection with each other, though they seem to be parted by three personalities. But I was afraid in the first place that I should present a flow in the Godhead, incapable of standing still; and secondly that by this figure a numerical unity would be introduced. For the eye and the spring and the river are numerically one, though in different forms.

I thought again about the sun, a ray, and light. But here too I had a fear that people might get the idea of composition in the Uncompounded Nature, like the composition that exists in the sun and the things that are in the sun. Second, I worried that we might give ousia to the Father but deny hypostasis to the Others, making Them merely Powers of God that exist in Him but are not Personal. For neither the ray nor the light is another sun—they are only emanations from the sun and qualities of its ousia. And I feared we might thus, as far as the illustration goes, attribute both Being and Not-being to God, which would be even more monstrous. I have also heard that someone has proposed an illustration like this: a ray of the sun flashing on a wall and trembling with the movement of moisture that the beam has picked up in midair, and then, being blocked by the hard surface, has created a strange quivering. For it quivers with many rapid movements and is not more one than it is many, nor more many than one, because through the swiftness of its uniting and separating it disappears before the eye can catch it.

XXXII. Again I thought of the sun and a ray and light. But here again there was a fear lest people should get an idea of composition in the Uncompounded Nature, such as there is in the Sun and the things that are in the Sun. And in the second place lest we should give Essence to the Father but deny Personality to the Others, and make Them only Powers of God, existing in Him and not Personal. For neither the ray nor the light is another sun, but they are only effulgences from the Sun, and qualities of His essence. And lest we should thus, as far as the illustration goes, attribute both Being and Not-being to God, which is even more monstrous. I have also heard that some one has suggested an illustration of the following kind. A ray of the Sun flashing upon a wall and trembling with the movement of the moisture which the beam has taken up in mid air, and then, being checked by the hard body, has set up a strange quivering. For it quivers with many rapid movements, and is not one rather than it is many, nor yet many rather than one; because by the swiftness of its union and separating it escapes before the eye can see it.

I cannot make use of even this analogy, because it is very clear what causes the ray to move, but there is nothing prior to God that could set Him in motion. He is Himself the Cause of all things, and He has no prior Cause. Also, in this case there is again a suggestion of things like composition, diffusion, and an unsettled and unstable nature—none of which we can attribute to the Godhead. In short, there is nothing in these illustrations that provides my mind with a stable point from which to consider the Object I am trying to represent to myself, unless one generously accepts one aspect of the image while rejecting the rest. Finally, then, it seems best to me to abandon the images and shadows, since they are deceptive and fall very far short of the truth. Instead, I will hold to the more reverent conception and rely on few words, using the guidance of the Holy Spirit, keeping to the end as my true comrade and companion the enlightenment I have received from Him, and passing through this world to persuade all others also to the best of my ability to worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the One Godhead and Power. To Him belongs all glory and honor and might for ever and ever. Amen.

XXXIII. But it is not possible for me to make use of even this; because it is very evident what gives the ray its motion; but there is nothing prior to God which could set Him in motion; for He is Himself the Cause of all things, and He has no prior Cause. And secondly because in this case also there is a suggestion of such things as composition, diffusion, and an unsettled and unstable nature…none of which we can suppose in the Godhead. In a word, there is nothing which presents a standing point to my mind in these illustrations from which to consider the Object which I am trying to represent to myself, unless one may indulgently accept one point of the image while rejecting the rest. Finally, then, it seems best to me to let the images and the shadows go, as being deceitful and very far short of the truth; and clinging myself to the more reverent conception, and resting upon few words, using the guidance of the Holy Ghost, keeping to the end as my genuine comrade and companion the enlightenment which I have received from Him, and passing through this world to persuade all others also to the best of my power to worship Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, the One Godhead and Power. To Him belongs all glory and honour and might for ever and ever. Amen.

The Second Concerning the Son.

The Second Concerning the Son.

I have used the Spirit's power to thoroughly defeat the clever and complex arguments, and I have already answered as a whole the objections and attacks drawn from Holy Scripture. These sacrilegious Bible robbers and thieves of its true meaning use these arguments to win over crowds and confuse the path of truth. I believe I have done this with clarity, as all fair-minded people will acknowledge. I have attributed the higher and more divine statements to the Deity, and the lower and more human ones to Him who for our sake became the Second Adam—God made capable of suffering to struggle against sin. However, we have not yet examined the passages one by one because our argument moved quickly. But since you ask us for a brief explanation of each passage, so that you will not be misled by the persuasiveness of their arguments, we will provide these explanations in summary form, dividing them into numbered points to make them easier to remember.

I. Since I have by the power of the Spirit sufficiently overthrown the subtleties and intricacies of the arguments, and already solved in the mass the objections and oppositions drawn from Holy Scripture, with which these sacrilegious robbers of the Bible and thieves of the sense of its contents draw over the multitude to their side, and confuse the way of truth; and that not without clearness, as I believe all candid persons will say; attributing to the Deity the higher and diviner expressions, and the lower and more human to Him Who for us men was the Second Adam, and was God made capable of suffering to strive against sin; yet we have not yet gone through the passages in detail, because of the haste of our argument. But since you demand of us a brief explanation of each of them, that you may not be carried away by the plausibilities of their arguments, we will therefore state the explanations summarily, dividing them into numbers for the sake of carrying them more easily in mind.

In their view, the following verse is all too readily available: "The Lord created me at the beginning of His ways with a view to His works." How should we respond to this? Should we bring charges against Solomon, or reject his earlier writings because of his later downfall? Should we say that these words belong to Wisdom herself—understood as Knowledge and the Creator-Logos, according to whom all things were made? For Scripture often personifies many things, even lifeless objects. For example, "The Sea said" such and such, and "The Depth says, It is not in me," and "The Heavens declare the glory of God." Again, a command is given to the Sword, and the Mountains and Hills are asked why they are leaping. We do not use any of these explanations, though some of our predecessors employed them as strong arguments. But let us grant that the expression refers to our Savior Himself, the true Wisdom. Let us consider one small point together. What among all existing things is without origin? The Godhead. For no one can tell the origin of God, since that would be older than God. But what is the cause of the Manhood which God assumed for our sake? Surely it was our salvation. What else could it be? Since we clearly find here both "the Created" and "Begetteth Me," the argument is straightforward. Whatever we find connected with a cause, we should refer to the Manhood, but everything that is absolute and without origin we should assign to His Godhead. Well then, is not this "Created" mentioned in connection with a cause? It says, "He created Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His works." Now, the works of His hands are truth and judgment, for whose sake He was anointed with Godhead—for this anointing belongs to the Manhood. But "He begets Me" is not connected with a cause, or else you must show what is attached to it. What argument, then, will disprove that Wisdom is called a creature in connection with the lower generation, but Begotten in respect of the first and more incomprehensible generation?

II. In their eyes the following is only too ready to hand "The Lord created me at the beginning of His ways with a view to His works." How shall we meet this? Shall we bring an accusation against Solomon, or reject his former words because of his fall in after-life? Shall we say that the words are those of Wisdom herself, as it were of Knowledge and the Creator-word, in accordance with which all things were made? For Scripture often personifies many even lifeless objects; as for instance, "The Sea said" so and so; and, "The Depth says, It is not in me;" and "The Heavens declare the glory of God;" and again a command is given to the Sword; and the Mountains and Hills are asked the reason of their skipping. We do not allege any of these, though some of our predecessors used them as powerful arguments. But let us grant that the expression is used of our Saviour Himself, the true Wisdom. Let us consider one small point together. What among all things that exist is unoriginate? The Godhead. For no one can tell the origin of God, that otherwise would be older than God. But what is the cause of the Manhood, which for our sake God assumed? It was surely our Salvation. What else could it be? Since then we find here clearly both the Created and the Begetteth Me, the argument is simple. Whatever we find joined with a cause we are to refer to the Manhood, but all that is absolute and unoriginate we are to reckon to the account of His Godhead. Well, then, is not this "Created" said in connection with a cause? He created Me, it so says, as the beginning of His ways, with a view to his works. Now, the Works of His Hands are verity and judgment; for whose sake He was anointed with Godhead; for this anointing is of the Manhood; but the "He begets Me" is not connected with a cause; or it is for you to show the adjunct. What argument then will disprove that Wisdom is called a creature, in connection with the lower generation, but Begotten in respect of the first and more incomprehensible?

Next, there is the fact that He is called Servant and serves many well, and that being called the Child of God is a great thing for Him. For in truth He was in servitude to flesh and to birth and to the conditions of our life for the purpose of our liberation, and that of all those whom He saved who were in bondage under sin. What greater destiny could come to human humility than to be intermingled with God, and through this intermingling to be deified, and that we should be visited by the Dayspring from on high in such a way that even that Holy Thing that was to be born would be called the Son of the Highest, and that a Name above every name should be bestowed upon Him? And what else can this be than God? And that every knee should bow to Him who made Himself of no reputation for us and who mingled the Form of God with the form of a servant, and that all the House of Israel should know that God has made Him both Lord and Christ? For all this was accomplished by the action of the Begotten and by the good pleasure of Him who begot Him.

III. Next is the fact of His being called Servant and serving many well, and that it is a great thing for Him to be called the Child of God. For in truth He was in servitude to flesh and to birth and to the conditions of our life with a view to our liberation, and to that of all those whom He has saved, who were in bondage under sin. What greater destiny can befall man's humility than that he should be intermingled with God, and by this intermingling should be deified, and that we should be so visited by the Dayspring from on high, that even that Holy Thing that should be born should be called the Son of the Highest, and that there should be bestowed upon Him a Name which is above every name? And what else can this be than God?-and that every knee should bow to Him That was made of no reputation for us, and That mingled the Form of God with the form of a servant, and that all the House of Israel should know that God has made Him both Lord and Christ? For all this was done by the action of the Begotten, and by the good pleasure of Him That begot Him.

Well, what is the second of their great irresistible passages? "He must reign" until such and such a time, and "be received by heaven until the time of restitution," and "have the seat at the Right Hand until the overthrow of His enemies." But after this? Must He cease to be King, or be removed from Heaven? Who could make Him cease, or for what reason? What a bold and truly anarchical interpreter you are! Yet you have heard that of His Kingdom there shall be no end. Your mistake comes from not understanding that "until" does not always exclude what comes after, but simply affirms things up to that point without denying what follows. To take one example—how else would you understand "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"? Does it mean He will no longer be with us afterward? And for what reason? But this is not the only cause of your error. You also fail to distinguish between the different things being signified. He is said to reign in one sense as the Almighty King, over both the willing and the unwilling. But in another sense, He reigns by producing submission in us and placing us under His Kingship as those willingly acknowledging His Sovereignty. Of His Kingdom, considered in the former sense, there shall be no end. But in the second sense, what will be the end? His taking us as His servants when we enter into a state of salvation. For what need is there to work submission in us when we have already submitted? After this He arises to judge the earth and to separate the saved from the lost. After that He is to stand as God in the midst of gods—that is, of the saved—distinguishing and deciding what honor and what mansion each is worthy of.

IV. Well, what is the second of their great irresistible passages? "He must reign," till such and such a time… and "be received by heaven until the time of restitution," and "have the seat at the Right Hand until the overthrow of His enemies." But after this? Must He cease to be King, or be removed from Heaven? Why, who shall make Him cease, or for what cause? What a bold and very anarchical interpreter you are; and yet you have heard that Of His Kingdom there shall be no end. Your mistake arises from not understanding that Until is not always exclusive of that which comes after, but asserts up to that time, without denying what comes after it. To take a single instance-how else would you understand, "Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world?" Does it mean that He will no longer be so afterwards. And for what reason? But this is not the only cause of your error; you also fail to distinguish between the things that are signified. He is said to reign in one sense as the Almighty King, both of the willing and the unwilling; but in another as producing in us submission, and placing us under His Kingship as willingly acknowledging His Sovereignty. Of His Kingdom, considered in the former sense, there shall be no end. But in the second sense, what end will there be? His taking us as His servants, on our entrance into a state of salvation. For what need is there to Work Submission in us when we have already submitted? After which He arises to judge the earth, and to separate the saved from the lost. After that He is to stand as God in the midst of gods, that is, of the saved, distinguishing and deciding of what honour and of what mansion each is worthy.

Take the next point: the subjection by which you make the Son subject to the Father. What are you saying—that He is not subject now, or that if He is God, He must be subject to God? You are constructing your argument as if it concerned some robber or some hostile deity. But look at it this way: just as for my sake He was called a curse, who destroyed my curse; and sin, who takes away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to replace the old, so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denying God and through my passions, Christ is also called disobedient on my account. But when all things are subdued to Him on one hand by acknowledgment of Him, and on the other by reformation, then He Himself will also have fulfilled His submission, bringing me whom He has saved to God. For this, in my view, is the subjection of Christ: namely, the fulfilling of the Father's will. But just as the Son subjects all to the Father, so does the Father to the Son—the one by His work, the other by His good pleasure, as we have already said. And thus He who subjects presents to God that which He has subjected, making our condition His own. Of the same kind, it seems to me, is the expression "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" It was not He who was forsaken either by the Father or by His own Godhead, as some have thought, as if it were afraid of the Passion and therefore withdrew itself from Him in His sufferings (for who compelled Him either to be born on earth at all or to be lifted up on the cross?). But as I said, He was in His own person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the sufferings of Him who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes our folly and our transgressions His own, and says what follows in the Psalm, for it is very evident that the twenty-first Psalm refers to Christ.

V. Take, in the next place, the subjection by which you subject the Son to the Father. What, you say, is He not now subject, or must He, if He is God, be subject to God? You are fashioning your argument as if it concerned some robber, or some hostile deity. But look at it in this manner: that as for my sake He was called a curse, Who destroyed my curse; and sin, who takes away the sin of the world; and became a new Adam to take the place of the old, just so He makes my disobedience His own as Head of the whole body. As long then as I am disobedient and rebellious, both by denial of God and by my passions, so long Christ also is called disobedient on my account. But when all things shall be subdued unto Him on the one hand by acknowledgment of Him, and on the other by a reformation, then He Himself also will have fulfilled His submission, bringing me whom He has saved to God. For this, according to my view, is the subjection of Christ; namely, the fulfilling of the Father's Will. But as the Son subjects all to the Father, so does the Father to the Son; the One by His Work, the Other by His good pleasure, as we have already said. And thus He Who subjects presents to God that which he has subjected, making our condition His own. Of the same kind, it appears to me, is the expression, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" It was not He who was forsaken either by the Father, or by His own Godhead, as some have thought, as if It were afraid of the Passion, and therefore withdrew Itself from Him in His Sufferings (for who compelled Him either to be born on earth at all, or to be lifted up on the Cross?) But as I said, He was in His own Person representing us. For we were the forsaken and despised before, but now by the Sufferings of Him Who could not suffer, we were taken up and saved. Similarly, He makes His own our folly and our transgressions; and says what follows in the Psalm, for it is very evident that the Twenty-first Psalm refers to Christ.

The same reasoning applies to another passage, "He learned obedience by the things which He suffered," and to His "strong crying and tears," and His "entreaties," and His "being heard," and His "reverence"—all of which He wonderfully worked out, like a drama whose plot was designed for our sake. For in His character as the Word, He was neither obedient nor disobedient. Such terms apply to servants and subordinates, and the former applies to the better sort of them, while the latter belongs to those who deserve punishment. But in the character of the form of a servant, He comes down to the level of His fellow servants—indeed, to His servants—and takes upon Himself a foreign form, bearing all of me and mine in Himself, so that in Himself He may consume the bad, as fire does wax, or as the sun does the mists of earth. In this way I may share in His nature through the blending. Thus He honors obedience by His action and proves it experimentally by His Passion. For possessing the disposition is not enough, just as it would not be enough for us unless we also proved it by our actions, because action is the proof of disposition.

VI. The same consideration applies to another passage, "He learnt obedience by the things which He suffered," and to His "strong crying and tears," and His "Entreaties," and His "being heard," and His" Reverence," all of which He wonderfully wrought out, like a drama whose plot was devised on our behalf. For in His character of the Word He was neither obedient nor disobedient. For such expressions belong to servants, and inferiors, and the one applies to the better sort of them, while the other belongs to those who deserve punishment. But, in the character of the Form of a Servant, He condescends to His fellow servants, nay, to His servants, and takes upon Him a strange form, bearing all me and mine in Himself, that in Himself He may exhaust the bad, as fire does wax, or as the sun does the mists of earth; and that I may partake of His nature by the blending. Thus He honours obedience by His action, and proves it experimentally by His Passion. For to possess the disposition is not enough, just as it would not be enough for us, unless we also proved it by our acts; for action is the proof of disposition.

And perhaps it would not be wrong to assume this as well: that through the skill of His love for humanity He measures our obedience and evaluates everything by comparing it with His own sufferings. In this way He may understand our condition by His own, and know how much is required of us and how much we give, taking into account both our circumstances and our weakness. For if the Light shining through the veil upon the darkness—that is, upon this life—was persecuted by the other darkness (I mean the Evil One and the Tempter), how much more will the darkness be persecuted, since it is weaker? And what is so remarkable if, though He completely escaped, we have been at least partly overtaken? For it is more wonderful that He should have been pursued than that we should have been captured—at least to the minds of all who reason rightly about this. I will add yet another passage to those I have mentioned, because I think it clearly points to the same meaning: "In that He has suffered being tempted, He is able to help those who are tempted." But God will be all in all in the time of restoration—not in the sense that the Father alone will exist and the Son will be completely absorbed back into Him, like a torch into a great fire from which it was taken away for a little while and then returned (for I would not want even the Sabellians to be wronged by such a statement). Rather, the entire Godhead will be all in all when we are no longer divided as we now are by impulses and passions, and when we contain nothing at all of God, or very little, but shall be entirely like God.

And perhaps it would not be wrong to assume this also, that by the art of His love for man He gauges our obedience, and measures all by comparison with His own Sufferings, so that He may know our condition by His own, and how much is demanded of us, and how much we yield, taking into the account, along with our environment, our weakness also. For if the Light shining through the veil upon the darkness, that is upon this life, was persecuted by the other darkness (I mean, the Evil One and the Tempter), how much more will the darkness be persecuted, as being weaker than it? And what marvel is it, that though He entirely escaped, we have been, at any rate in part, overtaken? For it is a more wonderful thing that He should have been chased than that we should have been captured;-at least to the minds of all who reason aright on the subject. I will add yet another passage to those I have mentioned, because I think that it clearly tends to the same sense. I mean "In that He has suffered being tempted, He is able to succour them that are tempted." But God will be all in all in the time of restitution; not in the sense that the Father alone will Be; and the Son be wholly resolved into Him, like a torch into a great pyre, from which it was reft away for a little space, and then put back (for I would not have even the Sabellians injured by such an expression); but the entire Godheadwhen we shall be no longer divided (as we now are by movements and passions), and containing nothing at all of God, or very little, but shall be entirely like.

As your third point you count the Word as Greater, and as your fourth, "To My God and your God." Now, if He had been called greater and the word equal had not occurred, this might perhaps have been a point in their favor. But if we find both words clearly used, what will these people have to say? How will it strengthen their argument? How will they reconcile the irreconcilable? For the same thing cannot be at once greater than and equal to the same thing—that is impossible. The obvious solution is that "Greater" refers to origination, while "Equal" belongs to the physis, and this we acknowledge quite willingly. But perhaps someone else will support our attack on your argument and assert that what comes from such a Cause is not inferior to that which has no Cause, for it would share the glory of being Unoriginate because it is from the Unoriginate. And besides, there is the Generation, which is so marvelous and full of such majesty to all people. For to say that He is greater than the Son considered as man is true indeed, but is no great thing. What marvel is it if God is greater than man? Surely that is enough to say in answer to their talk about "Greater."

VII. As your third point you count the Word Greater; and as your fourth, To My God and your God. And indeed, if He had been called greater, and the word equal had not occurred, this might perhaps have been a point in their favour. But if we find both words clearly used what will these gentlemen have to say? How will it strengthen their argument? How will they reconcile the irreconcilable? For that the same thing should be at once greater than and equal to the same thing is an impossibility; and the evident solution is that the Greater refers to origination, while the Equal belongs to the Nature; and this we acknowledge with much good will. But perhaps some one else will back up our attack on your argument, and assert, that That which is from such a Cause is not inferior to that which has no Cause; for it would share the glory of the Unoriginate, because it is from the Unoriginate. And there is, besides, the Generation, which is to all men a matter so marvellous and of such Majesty. For to say that he is greater than the Son considered as man, is true indeed, but is no great thing. For what marvel is it if God is greater than man? Surely that is enough to say in answer to their talk about Greater.

As for the other passages, "My God" would refer not to the Word but to the visible Word. For how could there be a God of Him who is properly God? In the same way, He is Father not of the visible but of the Word, since our Lord was of two natures. This means one expression is used properly and the other improperly in each of the two cases, but in exactly the opposite way to how they are used with respect to us. For with respect to us, God is properly our God but not properly our Father. This is the cause of the heretics' error: they confuse these two names, which are interchanged because of the union of the natures. Evidence of this is found in the fact that wherever the natures are distinguished in our thoughts from one another, the names are also distinguished, as you hear in Paul's words: "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory." The God of Christ, but the Father of glory. For although these two terms express only one person, this is not by a unity of nature but by a union of the two. What could be clearer?

VIII. As to the other passages, My God would be used in respect, not of the Word, but of the Visible Word. For how could there be a God of Him Who is properly God? In the same way He is Father, not of the Visible, but of the Word; for our Lord was of two Natures; so that one expression is used properly, the other improperly in each of the two cases; but exactly the opposite way to their use in respect of us. For with respect to us God is properly our God, but not properly our Father. And this is the cause of the error of the Heretics, namely the joining of these two Names, which are interchanged because of the Union of the Natures. And an indication of this is found in the fact that wherever the Natures are distinguished in our thoughts from one another, the Names are also distinguished; as you hear in Paul's words, "The God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of Glory." The God of Christ, but the Father of glory. For although these two terms express but one Person, yet this is not by a Unity of Nature, but by a Union of the two. What could be clearer?

IX. Fifth, someone might point out that Scripture says He receives life, judgment, inheritance of the Gentiles, power over all flesh, glory, disciples, or whatever else is mentioned. This too belongs to the Manhood; yet if you were to attribute it to the Godhead, it would not be absurd. For you would not be attributing it as though it were something newly acquired, but as something belonging to Him from the beginning by nature, and not as a favor granted to Him.

IX. Fifthly, let it be alleged that it is said of Him that He receives life, judgment, inheritance of the Gentiles, or power over all flesh, or glory, or disciples, or whatever else is mentioned. This also belongs to the Manhood; and yet if you were to ascribe it to the Godhead, it would be no absurdity. For you would not so ascribe it as if it were newly acquired, but as belonging to Him from the beginning by reason of nature, and not as an act of favour.

X. Sixthly, let it be asserted that it is written, "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do." The solution of this is as follows: "Can" and "cannot" are not words with only one meaning, but have many meanings. On the one hand, they are sometimes used with respect to deficiency of strength, sometimes with respect to time, and sometimes in relation to a certain object. For instance, a child cannot be an athlete, or a puppy cannot see, or fight with so-and-so. Perhaps someday the child will be an athlete, the puppy will see, will fight with that other, though it may still be unable to fight with any other. Or again, they may be used of that which is generally true. For instance, a city that is set on a hill cannot be hidden, while yet it might possibly be hidden by another higher hill being in line with it. Or in another sense they are used of a thing which is not reasonable, as in "Can the children of the bridechamber fast while the bridegroom is with them?" Whether He is considered as visible in bodily form (for the time of His dwelling among us was not one of mourning, but of gladness), or as the Word. For why should those who are cleansed by the Word keep a bodily fast? Or again, they are used of that which is contrary to the will, as in "He could do no mighty works there because of their unbelief"—that is, of those who should receive them. For since healing requires both faith in the patient and power in the healer, when one of the two failed the other was impossible. But probably this sense also should be referred to the category of the unreasonable. For healing is not reasonable in the case of those who would afterwards be injured by unbelief. The sentence "The world cannot hate you" comes under the same category, as does also "How can you, being evil, speak good things?" For in what sense is either impossible, except that it is contrary to the will? There is a somewhat similar meaning in the expressions which imply that a thing impossible by nature is possible to God if He so wills, as that a man cannot be born a second time, or that a needle will not let a camel through it. For what could prevent either of these things happening, if God so willed?

X. Sixthly, let it be asserted that it is written, The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do. The solution of this is as follows:-Can and Cannot are not words with only one meaning, but have many meanings. On the one hand they are used sometimes in respect of deficiency of strength, sometimes in respect of time, and sometimes relatively to a certain object; as for instance, A Child cannot be an Athlete, or, A Puppy cannot see, or fight with so and so. Perhaps some day the child will be an athlete, the puppy will see, will fight with that other, though it may still be unable to fight with Any other. Or again, they may be used of that which is Generally true. For instance,-A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid; while yet it might possibly be hidden by another higher hill being in a line with it. Or in another sense they are used of a thing which is not reasonable; as, Can the Children of the Bridechamber fast while the Bridegroom is with them; whether He be considered as visible in bodily form (for the time of His sojourning among us was not one of mourning, but of gladness), or, as the Word. For why should they keep a bodily fast who are cleansed by the Word? Or, again, they are used of that which is contrary to the will; as in, He could do no mighty works there because of their unbelief, -i.e. of those who should receive them. For since in order to healing there is need of both faith in the patient and power in the Healer, when one of the two failed the other was impossible. But probably this sense also is to be referred to the head of the unreasonable. For healing is not reasonable in the case of those who would afterwards be injured by unbelief. The sentence The world cannot hate you, comes under the same head, as does also How can ye, being evil, speak good things? For in what sense is either impossible, except that it is contrary to the will? There is a somewhat similar meaning in the expressions which imply that a thing impossible by nature is possible to God if He so wills; as that a man cannot be born a second time, or that a needle will not let a camel through it. For what could prevent either of these things happening, if God so willed?

And besides all this, there is the absolutely impossible and inadmissible, like what we are now examining. For just as we assert that it is impossible for God to be evil or not to exist—since this would indicate weakness in God rather than strength—or for the non-existent to exist, or for two and two to make both four and ten, so it is impossible and inconceivable that the Son should do anything that the Father does not. For all things that the Father has are the Son's, and on the other hand, all that belongs to the Son is the Father's. Nothing then is unique to one, because all things are held in common. For their very Being itself is common and equal, even though the Son receives it from the Father. It is in respect of this that it is said "I live by the Father"—not as though his life and being were held together by the Father, but because he has his being from him beyond all time and beyond all cause. But how does he see the Father doing and do likewise? Is it like those who copy pictures and letters, because they cannot achieve accuracy unless by looking at the original and being guided by it? But how would Wisdom need a teacher or be incapable of acting unless taught? And in what sense does the Father "do" in the present or in the past? Did he make another world before this one, or is he going to make a world to come? And did the Son look at that and make this? Or will he look at the other and make one like it? According to this argument there must be four worlds, two made by the Father and two by the Son. What an absurdity! He cleanses lepers and delivers people from evil spirits and diseases, and raises the dead, and walks upon the sea, and does all his other works—but in what case, or when, did the Father do these acts before him? Is it not clear that the Father impressed the ideas of these same actions, and the Word brings them to pass, yet not in a slavish or unskilled fashion, but with full knowledge and in a masterly way, or to speak more properly, like the Father? For in this sense I understand the words that whatever is done by the Father, these things the Son does likewise—not, that is, because of the likeness of the things done, but in respect of the authority. This might well also be the meaning of the passage which says that the Father works until now and the Son also; and not only so, but it refers also to the government and preservation of the things which he has made, as is shown by the passage which says that he makes his angels spirits, and that the earth is founded upon its steadfastness (though once for all these things were fixed and made), and that the thunder is made firm and the wind created. Of all these things the Word was given once, but the action is continuous even now.

XI. And besides all this, there is the absolutely impossible and inadmissible, as that which we are now examining. For as we assert that it is impossible for God to be evil, or not to exist-for this would be indicative of weakness in God rather than of strength-or for the non-existent to exist, or for two and two to make both four and ten, so it is impossible and inconceivable that the Son should do anything that the Father does not. For all things that the Father has are the Son's; and on the other hand, all that belongs to the Son is the Father's. Nothing then is peculiar, because all things are in common. For Their Being itself is common and equal, even though the Son receive it from the Father. It is in respect of this that it is said I live by the Father; not as though His Life and Being were kept together by the Father, but because He has His Being from Him beyond all time, and beyond all cause. But how does He see the Father doing, and do likewise? Is it like those who copy pictures and letters, because they cannot attain the truth unless by looking at the original, and being led by the hand by it? But how shall Wisdom stand in need of a teacher, or be incapable of acting unless taught? And in what sense does the Father "Do" in the present or in the past? Did He make another world before this one, or is He going to make a world to come? And did the Son look at that and make this? Or will He look at the other, and make one like it? According to this argument there must be Four worlds, two made by the Father, and two by the Son. What an absurdity! He cleanses lepers, and delivers men from evil spirits, and diseases, and quickens the dead, and walks upon the sea, and does all His other works; but in what case, or when did the Father do these acts before Him? Is it not clear that the Father impressed the ideas of these same actions, and the Word brings them to pass, yet not in slavish or unskilful fashion, but with full knowledge and in a masterly way, or, to speak more properly, like the Father? For in this sense I understand the words that whatsoever is done by the Father, these things does the Son likewise; not, that is, because of the likeness of the things done, but in respect of the Authority. This might well also be the meaning of the passage which says that the Father works hitherto and the Son also; and not only so but it refers also to the government and preservation of the things which He has made; as is shown by the passage which says that He makes His Angels Spirits, and that the earth is founded upon its steadfastness (though once for all these things were fixed and made) and that the thunder is made firm and the wind created. Of all these things the Word was given once, but the Action is continuous even now.

Let them quote in the seventh place that the Son came down from heaven, not to do his own will, but the will of him who sent him. Well, if this had not been said by the one who came down himself, we would say that the phrase was shaped as coming from the human nature, not from him who is understood in his character as the Savior, for his human will cannot be opposed to God, since it is entirely taken up into God. But we understand it simply as being in our nature, because the human will does not completely follow the divine will, but for the most part struggles against and resists it. For we understand in the same way the words, "Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless let not what I will but your will prevail." For it is not likely that he did not know whether it was possible or not, or that he would set will against will. But since this is the language of the one who took on our nature (for he was the one who came down), and not of the nature which he took on, we must answer the objection this way: the passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of his own, besides that of the Father, but that he does not have one. So the meaning would be, "not to do my own will, for there is none of mine apart from you, but only that which is common to me and you; for just as we have one Godhead, so we have one will." For many such expressions are used in relation to this shared reality, and are expressed not positively but negatively. For example, God does not give the Spirit by measure, for as a matter of fact he does not give the Spirit to the Son, nor does he measure it, for God is not measured by God. Or again, "not my transgression nor my sin." The words are not used because he has these things, but because he does not have them. And again, "not for our righteousness which we have done," for we have not done any. And this meaning is clear also in the clauses that follow. For what, he says, is the will of my Father? That everyone who believes in the Son should be saved and obtain the final resurrection. Now is this the will of the Father but not of the Son? Or does he preach the gospel and receive people's faith against his will? Who could believe that? Moreover, that passage too, which says that the word which is heard is not the Son's but the Father's, has the same force. For I cannot see how that which is common to two can be said to belong to one alone, however much I consider it, and I do not think anyone else can. If then you hold this opinion concerning the will, you will be right and reverent in your opinion, as I think, and as every right-minded person thinks.

XII. Let them quote in the seventh place that The Son came down from Heaven, not to do His own Will, but the Will of Him That sent Him. Well, if this had not been said by Himself Who came down, we should say that the phrase was modelled as issuing from the Human Nature, not from Him who is conceived of in His character as the Saviour, for His Human Will cannot be opposed to God, seeing it is altogether taken into God; but conceived of simply as in our nature, inasmuch as the human will does not completely follow the Divine, but for the most part struggles against and resists it. For we understand in the same way the words, Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me; Nevertheless let not what I will but Your Will prevail. For it is not likely that He did not know whether it was possible or not, or that He would oppose will to will. But since, as this is the language of Him Who assumed our Nature (for He it was Who came down), and not of the Nature which He assumed, we must meet the objection in this way, that the passage does not mean that the Son has a special will of His own, besides that of the Father, but that He has not; so that the meaning would be, "not to do Mine own Will, for there is none of Mine apart from, but that which is common to, Me and You; for as We have one Godhead, so We have one Will." For many such expressions are used in relation to this Community, and are expressed not positively but negatively; as, e.g., God gives not the Spirit by measure, for as a matter of fact He does not give the Spirit to the Son, nor does He measure It, for God is not measured by God; or again, Not my transgression nor my sin. The words are not used because He has these things, but because He has them not. And again, Not for our righteousness which we have done, for we have not done any. And this meaning is evident also in the clauses which follow. For what, says He, is the Will of My Father? That everyone that believes in the Son should be saved, and obtain the final Resurrection. Now is this the Will of the Father, but not of the Son? Or does He preach the Gospel, and receive men's faith against His will? Who could believe that? Moreover, that passage, too, which says that the Word which is heard is not the Son's but the Father's has the same force. For I cannot see how that which is common to two can be said to belong to one alone, however much I consider it, and I do not think any one else can. If then you hold this opinion concerning the Will, you will be right and reverent in your opinion, as I think, and as every right-minded person thinks.

The eighth passage is "That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent," and "There is none good save one, that is, God." The solution to this seems very easy to me. If you apply "only" exclusively to the Father, where does that leave the Very Truth? For if you understand in this way the meaning of "To the only wise God," or "Who only has Immortality, Dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto," or "to the king of the Ages, immortal, invisible, and only wise God," then the Son has disappeared under a sentence of death or darkness, or at least is condemned to be neither wise nor king, nor invisible, nor God at all—which covers all these points. And how will you prevent His Goodness, which especially belongs to God alone, from being destroyed along with the rest? I, however, think that the passage "That they may know You the only true God" was said to overthrow those gods which are falsely called gods, for He would not have added "and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent" if "The Only True God" were being contrasted with Him, and the sentence were not based on a common Godhead. The "None is Good" addresses the testing lawyer who was acknowledging His Goodness viewed as Man. For perfect goodness, He says, belongs to God alone, even if a man is called perfectly good—as for instance, "A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things," and "I will give the kingdom to one who is good above You"—words of God speaking to Saul about David. Or again, "Do good, O Lord, unto the good," and all other similar expressions about those of us who are praised, for whom it is a kind of flowing forth from the Supreme Good and has come to them in a secondary degree. It will be best of all if we can persuade you of this. But if not, what will you say to the suggestion on the other side, that on your hypothesis the Son has been called the only God? In what passage? Why, in this: "This is your God; no other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him," and a little further on, "after this did He show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men." This addition makes it clear that the words are not used of the Father, but of the Son, for it was He Who in bodily form lived with us and was in this lower world. Now, if we should decide to take these words as said in contrast with the Father, and not with the imaginary gods, we lose the Father by the very terms we were using against the Son. And what could be more disastrous than such a victory?

XIII. The eighth passage is, That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent; and There is none good save one, that is, God. The solution of this appears to me very easy. For if you attribute this only to the Father, where will you place the Very Truth? For if you conceive in this manner of the meaning of To the only wise God, or Who only has Immortality, Dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto, or of to the king of the Ages, immortal, invisible, and only wise God, then the Son has vanished under sentence of death, or of darkness, or at any rate condemned to be neither wise nor king, nor invisible, nor God at all, which sums up all these points. And how will you prevent His Goodness, which especially belongs to God alone, from perishing with the rest? I, however, think that the passage That they may know You the only true God, was said to overthrow those gods which are falsely so called, for He would not have added and Jesus Christ Whom You have sent, if The Only True God were contrasted with Him, and the sentence did not proceed upon the basis of a common Godhead. The "None is Good" meets the tempting Lawyer, who was testifying to His Goodness viewed as Man. For perfect goodness, He says, is God's alone, even if a man is called perfectly good. As for instance, A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good things. And, I will give the kingdom to one who is good above You…. Words of God, speaking to Saul about David. Or again, Do good, O Lord, unto the good… and all other like expressions concerning those of us who are praised, upon whom it is a kind of effluence from the Supreme Good, and has come to them in a secondary degree. It will be best of all if we can persuade you of this. But if not, what will you say to the suggestion on the other side, that on your hypothesis the Son has been called the only God. In what passage? Why, in this:-This is your God; no other shall be accounted of in comparison with Him, and a little further on, after this did He show Himself upon earth, and conversed with men. This addition proves clearly that the words are not used of the Father, but of the Son; for it was He Who in bodily form companied with us, and was in this lower world. Now, if we should determine to take these words as said in contrast with the Father, and not with the imaginary gods, we lose the Father by the very terms which we were pressing against the Son. And what could be more disastrous than such a victory?

XIV. Ninth, they cite the passage "seeing He ever lives to make intercession for us." How beautiful, mystical, and kind this is! To intercede does not mean to seek vengeance, as most people do (for that would involve something humiliating). Rather, it means to plead for us because of His role as Mediator, just as the Spirit is also said to make intercession for us. For there is One God, and One Mediator between God and humanity, the Man Christ Jesus. He still pleads even now as Man for my salvation, for He continues to wear the body He took on, until He makes me God by the power of His Incarnation. Yet He is no longer known according to the flesh—I mean, the passions of the flesh, which are the same as ours except for sin. Similarly, we have an Advocate, Jesus Christ, who does not prostrate Himself before the Father on our behalf, falling down before Him in a slavish manner. Away with such a truly slavish suspicion, unworthy of the Spirit! It is not fitting for the Father to require this, nor for the Son to submit to it, nor is it right to think such things of God. Rather, through what He suffered as Man, He as the Word and Counselor persuades Him to be patient. I think this is the meaning of His Advocacy.

XIV. Ninthly, they allege, seeing He ever lives to make intercession for us. O, how beautiful and mystical and kind. For to intercede does not imply to seek for vengeance, as is most men's way (for in that there would be something of humiliation), but it is to plead for us by reason of His Mediatorship, just as the Spirit also is said to make intercession for us. For there is One God, and One Mediator between God and Man, the Man Christ Jesus. For He still pleads even now as Man for my salvation; for He continues to wear the Body which He assumed, until He make me God by the power of His Incarnation; although He is no longer known after the flesh -I mean, the passions of the flesh, the same, except sin, as ours. Thus too, we have an Advocate, Jesus Christ, not indeed prostrating Himself for us before the Father, and falling down before Him in slavish fashion… Away with a suspicion so truly slavish and unworthy of the Spirit! For neither is it seemly for the Father to require this, nor for the Son to submit to it; nor is it just to think it of God. But by what He suffered as Man, He as the Word and the Counsellor persuades Him to be patient. I think this is the meaning of His Advocacy.

Their tenth objection concerns the ignorance and the statement that no one knows the last day and hour, not even the Son Himself, but only the Father. Yet how can Wisdom be ignorant of anything—that is, the Wisdom who made the worlds, who perfects them, who reshapes them, who is the boundary of all created things, who knows the things of God as a person's spirit knows what is within that person? What knowledge could be more complete than this? How then can you claim that He knows all things accurately before that hour and all things that will happen around the time of the end, but is ignorant of the hour itself? This would be absurd—like saying someone knows accurately everything in front of a wall but does not know the wall itself, or that knowing the end of the day, he does not know the beginning of the night, when knowledge of one necessarily includes the other. Therefore, everyone must see that He knows as God and does not know as Man—if one can distinguish the visible from what is perceived by thought alone. For the absolute and unconditional use of the title "the Son" in this passage, without specifying whose Son, gives us this understanding: we are to interpret the ignorance in the most reverent way by attributing it to the humanity, not to the Godhead.

XV. Their tenth objection is the ignorance, and the statement that Of the last day and hour knows no man, not even the Son Himself, but the Father. And yet how can Wisdom be ignorant of anything-that is, Wisdom Who made the worlds, Who perfects them, Who remodels them, Who is the Limit of all things that were made, Who knows the things of God as the spirit of a man knows the things that are in him? For what can be more perfect than this knowledge? How then can you say that all things before that hour He knows accurately, and all things that are to happen about the time of the end, but of the hour itself He is ignorant? For such a thing would be like a riddle; as if one were to say that he knew accurately all that was in front of the wall, but did not know the wall itself; or that, knowing the end of the day, he did not know the beginning of the night-where knowledge of the one necessarily brings in the other. Thus everyone must see that He knows as God, and knows not as Man;-if one may separate the visible from that which is discerned by thought alone. For the absolute and unconditioned use of the Name "The Son" in this passage, without the addition of whose Son, gives us this thought, that we are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to the Manhood, and not to the Godhead.

If this argument is enough, let us stop here and not investigate further. But if not, our second argument is this: Just as we do in all other cases, let us refer His knowledge of the greatest events, in honor of the Father, to the Cause. And I think that anyone, even if he did not read it the way one of our own students did, would quickly understand that not even the Son knows the day or hour except as the Father does. For what do we conclude from this? That since the Father knows, therefore the Son also knows, since it is clear that this cannot be known or understood by any except the First Nature. What remains for us is to interpret the passage about His receiving commandment, and having kept His Commandments, and having always done those things that please Him; and also concerning His being made perfect, and His exaltation, and His learning obedience through the things which He suffered; and also His High Priesthood, and His Offering, and His Betrayal, and His prayer to Him who was able to save Him from death, and His Agony and Bloody Sweat and Prayer, and similar things—if it were not obvious to everyone that such words concern not that Nature which is unchangeable and above all capacity for suffering, but the passible Humanity. This, then, is the argument concerning these objections, sufficient to serve as a kind of foundation and memorandum for the use of those who are better able to carry the investigation to a more complete working out. However, it may be worthwhile, and will be consistent with what has already been said, instead of passing over without comment the actual Titles of the Son (there are many of them, and they concern many of His attributes), to set before you the meaning of each of them and to point out the mystical meaning of the names.

XVI. If then this argument is sufficient, let us stop here, and not enquire further. But if not, our second argument is as follows:-Just as we do in all other instances, so let us refer His knowledge of the greatest events, in honour of the Father, to The Cause. And I think that anyone, even if he did not read it in the way that one of our own Students did, would soon perceive that not even the Son knows the day or hour otherwise than as the Father does. For what do we conclude from this? That since the Father knows, therefore also does the Son, as it is evident that this cannot be known or comprehended by any but the First Nature. There remains for us to interpret the passage about His receiving commandment, and having kept His Commandments, and done always those things that please Him; and further concerning His being made perfect, and His exaltation, and His learning obedience by the things which He suffered; and also His High Priesthood, and His Oblation, and His Betrayal, and His prayer to Him That was able to save Him from death, and His Agony and Bloody Sweat and Prayer, and such like things; if it were not evident to every one that such words are concerned, not with That Nature Which is unchangeable and above all capacity of suffering, but with the passible Humanity. This, then, is the argument concerning these objections, so far as to be a sort of foundation and memorandum for the use of those who are better able to conduct the enquiry to a more complete working out. It may, however, be worth while, and will be consistent with what has been already said, instead of passing over without remark the actual Titles of the Son (there are many of them, and they are concerned with many of His Attributes), to set before you the meaning of each of them, and to point out the mystical meaning of the names.

We will begin like this. The Deity cannot be expressed in words. This is proved to us not only by argument, but by the wisest and most ancient of the Hebrews, insofar as they have given us reason to draw this conclusion. For they set apart certain characters for the honor of the Deity, and would not even allow the name of anything inferior to God to be written with the same letters as the name of God, because in their view it was improper for the Deity to grant any of His creatures a share with Himself even to that extent. How then could they have admitted that the invisible and separate Nature can be explained by divisible words? For no one has yet breathed in all the air, nor has any mind entirely grasped, or any speech exhaustively contained, the Being of God. Instead, we sketch Him through His attributes, and in this way we obtain a certain faint and weak and partial idea about Him. Our best theologian is not the one who has discovered the whole—for our present condition does not allow us to see the whole—but the one who has conceived of Him to a greater extent than another, and has gathered in himself more of the Likeness or shadow of the Truth, or whatever we may call it.

XVII. We will begin thus. The Deity cannot be expressed in words. And this is proved to us, not only by argument, but by the wisest and most ancient of the Hebrews, so far as they have given us reason for conjecture. For they appropriated certain characters to the honour of the Deity, and would not even allow the name of anything inferior to God to be written with the same letters as that of God, because to their minds it was improper that the Deity should even to that extent admit any of His creatures to a share with Himself. How then could they have admitted that the invisible and separate Nature can be explained by divisible words? For neither has any one yet breathed the whole air, nor has any mind entirely comprehended, or speech exhaustively contained the Being of God. But we sketch Him by His Attributes, and so obtain a certain faint and feeble and partial idea concerning Him, and our best Theologian is he who has, not indeed discovered the whole, for our present chain does not allow of our seeing the whole, but conceived of Him to a greater extent than another, and gathered in himself more of the Likeness or adumbration of the Truth, or whatever we may call it.

As far as we can understand, "He Who Is" and "God" are the special names of His essence (ousia); and of these especially "He Who Is," not only because when He spoke to Moses on the mountain and Moses asked what His name was, this was what He called Himself, telling him to say to the people "I Am has sent me," but also because we find that this name is more strictly appropriate. For the name Theos (God), even if—as those who are skilled in these matters say—it comes from thein (to run) or from aithein (to blaze), suggesting continual motion and His consuming of evil conditions (which is why He is also called a Consuming Fire), would still be one of the relative names, not an absolute one; as is also the case with Lord, which is likewise called a name of God. "I am the Lord Your God," He says, "that is My name"; and "The Lord is His name." But we are investigating a nature (physis) whose being is absolute, not a being that is bound up with something else. But being in its proper sense is peculiar to God alone, and belongs to Him entirely, and is not limited or cut short by any before or after, for indeed in Him there is no past or future.

XVIII. As far then as we can reach, He Who Is, and God, are the special names of His Essence; and of these especially He Who Is, not only because when He spoke to Moses in the mount, and Moses asked what His Name was, this was what He called Himself, bidding him say to the people "I Am has sent me," but also because we find that this Name is the more strictly appropriate. For the Name Qeo/j (God), even if, as those who are skilful in these matters say, it were derived from Qe/ein (to run) or from Ai!qein (to blaze), from continual motion, and because He consumes evil conditions of things (from which fact He is also called A Consuming Fire), would still be one of the Relative Names, and not an Absolute one; as again is the case with Lord, which also is called a name of God. I am the Lord Your God, He says, that is My name; and, The Lord is His name. But we are enquiring into a Nature Whose Being is absolute and not into Being bound up with something else. But Being is in its proper sense peculiar to God, and belongs to Him entirely, and is not limited or cut short by any Before or After, for indeed in him there is no past or future.

The other titles clearly refer either to His authority or to His governance of the world, and this governance is viewed from two perspectives: one before and one after the Incarnation. For example, the Almighty, the King of Glory, or of The Ages, or of The Powers, or of The Beloved, or of Kings. Or again the Lord of Sabaoth (that is, of Hosts), or of Powers, or of Lords. These are clearly titles that belong to His authority. But the God either of Salvation or of Vengeance, or of Peace, or of Righteousness, or of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of all the spiritual Israel that sees God—these belong to His governance. Since we are governed by three things—the fear of punishment, the hope of salvation and of glory besides, and the practice of the virtues by which these are attained—the name of the God of Vengeance governs our fear, and that of the God of Salvation governs our hope, and that of the God of Virtues governs our practice. In this way, whoever attains to any of these may, as one carrying God in himself, press on even more toward perfection and toward that kinship which arises out of virtues. Now these are names common to the Godhead, but the proper name of the Unoriginate is Father, and that of the unoriginately Begotten is Son, and that of the unbegottenly Proceeding or going forth is The Holy Ghost. Let us proceed then to the names of the Son, which were our starting point in this part of our argument.

XIX. Of the other titles, some are evidently names of His Authority, others of His Government of the world, and of this viewed under a twofold aspect, the one before the other in the Incarnation. For instance the Almighty, the King of Glory, or of The Ages, or of The Powers, or of The Beloved, or of Kings. Or again the Lord of Sabaoth, that is of Hosts, or of Powers, or of Lords; these are clearly titles belonging to His Authority. But the God either of Salvation or of Vengeance, or of Peace, or of Righteousness; or of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and of all the spiritual Israel that sees God,-these belong to His Government. For since we are governed by these three things, the fear of punishment, the hope of salvation and of glory besides, and the practice of the virtues by which these are attained, the Name of the God of Vengeance governs fear, and that of the God of Salvation our hope, and that of the God of Virtues our practice; that whoever attains to any of these may, as carrying God in himself, press on yet more unto perfection, and to that affinity which arises out of virtues. Now these are Names common to the Godhead, but the Proper Name of the Unoriginate is Father, and that of the unoriginately Begotten is Son, and that of the unbegottenly Proceeding or going forth is The Holy Ghost. Let us proceed then to the Names of the Son, which were our starting point in this part of our argument.

In my opinion, He is called Son because He is identical with the Father in ousia, and not only for this reason, but also because He is from Him. He is called Only-Begotten not simply because He is the only Son of the Father alone, and only a Son, but also because the manner of His Sonship is unique to Himself and not shared by physical bodies. He is called the Word because He is related to the Father as word is related to mind—not only because of His passionless generation, but also because of the union and His revealing function. Perhaps this relation might also be compared to the connection between a definition and the thing defined, since this too is called logos. For it says that whoever has mentally perceived the Son (for this is what "has seen" means) has also perceived the Father, and the Son is a brief demonstration and easy explanation of the Father's nature. Everything that is begotten is a silent word of the one who begot it. If anyone should say that this name was given Him because He exists in all things that are, he would not be wrong. For what exists except by the Word? He is also called Wisdom, as the knowledge of things divine and human. For how could He who made all things be ignorant of the reasons for what He has made? He is called Power, as the sustainer of all created things and the one who gives them the power to hold themselves together. He is called Truth, as being by nature one and not many (for truth is one and falsehood is multiple), and as the pure seal of the Father and His most accurate imprint. He is called the Image as being of one ousia with Him, and because He is from the Father, and not the Father from Him. For this is the nature of an image: to be the reproduction of its archetype and of that whose name it bears—only there is more here. In ordinary language an image is a motionless representation of something that has motion, but in this case it is the living reproduction of the Living One, and is more exactly similar than Seth was to Adam or any son to his father. For such is the nature of simple existences that it is not correct to say they are alike in one respect and unlike in another; rather, they are a complete resemblance and should be called identical rather than merely alike. Moreover, He is called Light as being the brightness of souls cleansed by word and life. For if ignorance and sin are darkness, then knowledge and a godly life will be light. He is called Life because He is Light and is the constituting and creating power of every rational soul. For in Him we live and move and have our being, according to the double power of that breathing into us—for we were all inspired by Him with breath, and as many of us as were capable of it, and insofar as we open the mouth of our mind, with God the Holy Spirit. He is Righteousness because He distributes according to what we deserve and is a righteous judge both for those under the Law and for those under grace, for soul and body, so that the former should rule and the latter obey, and the higher have supremacy over the lower, so that the worse may not rise in rebellion against the better. He is Sanctification, as being purity, so that the pure may be contained by purity. He is Redemption because He sets us free who were held captive under sin, giving Himself as a ransom for us, the sacrifice to make atonement for the world. And He is Resurrection because He raises us up from here and brings to life again us who were slain by sin.

XX. In my opinion He is called Son because He is identical with the Father in Essence; and not only for this reason, but also because He is Of Him. And He is called Only-Begotten, not because He is the only Son and of the Father alone, and only a Son; but also because the manner of His Sonship is peculiar to Himself and not shared by bodies. And He is called the Word, because He is related to the Father as Word to Mind; not only on account of His passionless Generation, but also because of the Union, and of His declaratory function. Perhaps too this relation might be compared to that between the Definition and the Thing defined since this also is called Lo/goj. For, it says, he that has mental perception of the Son (for this is the meaning of Hath Seen) has also perceived the Father; and the Son is a concise demonstration and easy setting forth of the Father's Nature. For every thing that is begotten is a silent word of him that begot it. And if any one should say that this Name was given Him because He exists in all things that are, he would not be wrong. For what is there that consists but by the word? He is also called Wisdom, as the Knowledge of things divine and human. For how is it possible that He Who made all things should be ignorant of the reasons of what He has made? And Power, as the Sustainer of all created things, and the Furnisher to them of power to keep themselves together. And Truth, as being in nature One and not many (for truth is one and falsehood is manifold), and as the pure Seal of the Father and His most unerring Impress. And the Image as of one substance with Him, and because He is of the Father, and not the Father of Him. For this is of the Nature of an Image, to be the reproduction of its Archetype, and of that whose name it bears; only that there is more here. For in ordinary language an image is a motionless representation of that which has motion; but in this case it is the living reproduction of the Living One, and is more exactly like than was Seth to Adam, or any son to his father. For such is the nature of simple Existences, that it is not correct to say of them that they are Like in one particular and Unlike in another; but they are a complete resemblance, and should rather be called Identical than Like. Moreover he is called Light as being the Brightness of souls cleansed by word and life. For if ignorance and sin be darkness, knowledge and a godly life will be Light…. And He is called Life, because He is Light, and is the constituting and creating Power of every reasonable soul. For in Him we live and move and have our being, according to the double power of that Breathing into us; for we were all inspired by Him with breath, and as many of us as were capable of it, and in so far as we open the mouth of our mind, with God the Holy Ghost. He is Righteousness, because He distributes according to that which we deserve, and is a righteous Arbiter both for those who are under the Law and for those who are under Grace, for soul and body, so that the former should rule, and the latter obey, and the higher have supremacy over the lower; that the worse may not rise in rebellion against the better. He is Sanctification, as being Purity, that the Pure may be contained by Purity. And Redemption, because He sets us free, who were held captive under sin, giving Himself a Ransom for us, the Sacrifice to make expiation for the world. And Resurrection, because He raises up from hence, and brings to life again us, who were slain by sin.

These names are still common to both Him Who is above us and to Him Who came for our sake. But other names are peculiarly our own and belong to the nature He assumed. So He is called Man, not only so that through His body He may be understood by embodied creatures—since otherwise this would be impossible because of His incomprehensible nature—but also so that by Himself He may sanctify humanity and be like leaven to the whole lump. By uniting to Himself that which was condemned, He may release it from all condemnation, becoming for all people all things that we are except sin: body, soul, mind, and everything through which death reaches us. And thus He became Man, who is the combination of all these—God in visible form, because He retained that which is perceived by mind alone. He is Son of Man both on account of Adam and of the Virgin from whom He came: from the one as a forefather, from the other as His Mother, both in accordance with the law of generation and apart from it. He is Christ because of His Godhead, for this is the Anointing of His Manhood. This does not sanctify by its action, as is the case with all other anointed ones, but by the presence in His fullness of the Anointing One. The result is that what anoints is called Man and makes what is anointed God. He is the Way because He leads us through Himself; the Door, as letting us in; the Shepherd, as making us dwell in a place of green pastures and bringing us up by waters of rest and leading us there and protecting us from wild beasts, converting the erring, bringing back what was lost, binding up what was broken, guarding the strong, and gathering them together in the Fold beyond with words of pastoral knowledge. He is the Sheep as the Victim; the Lamb as being perfect; the Highpriest as the Offerer; Melchisedec, as without Mother in that nature which is above us and without Father in ours, and without genealogy above—for who, it says, shall declare His generation?—and moreover as King of Salem, which means Peace, and King of Righteousness, and as receiving tithes from Patriarchs when they prevail over powers of evil. These are the titles of the Son. Walk through them, the lofty ones in a godlike manner, those that belong to the body in a manner suitable to them—or rather, altogether in a godlike manner—so that you may become a god, ascending from below for His sake Who came down from on high for ours. In all things and above all keep to this, and you shall never err, either in the loftier or the lowlier names: Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today in the Incarnation, and in the Spirit forever and ever. Amen.

XXI. These names however are still common to Him Who is above us, and to Him Who came for our sake. But others are peculiarly our own, and belong to that nature which He assumed. So He is called Man, not only that through His Body He may be apprehended by embodied creatures, whereas otherwise this would be impossible because of His incomprehensible nature; but also that by Himself He may sanctify humanity, and be as it were a leaven to the whole lump; and by uniting to Himself that which was condemned may release it from all condemnation, becoming for all men all things that we are, except sin;-body, soul, mind and all through which death reaches-and thus He became Man, who is the combination of all these; God in visible form, because He retained that which is perceived by mind alone. He is Son of Man, both on account of Adam, and of the Virgin from Whom He came; from the one as a forefather, from the other as His Mother, both in accordance with the law of generation, and apart from it. He is Christ, because of His Godhead. For this is the Anointing of His Manhood, and does not, as is the case with all other Anointed Ones, sanctify by its action, but by the Presence in His Fulness of the Anointing One; the effect of which is that That which anoints is called Man, and makes that which is anointed God. He is The Way, because He leads us through Himself; The Door, as letting us in; the Shepherd, as making us dwell in a place of green pastures, and bringing us up by waters of rest, and leading us there, and protecting us from wild beasts, converting the erring, bringing back that which was lost, binding up that which was broken, guarding the strong, and bringing them together in the Fold beyond, with words of pastoral knowledge. The Sheep, as the Victim: The Lamb, as being perfect: the Highpriest, as the Offerer; Melchisedec, as without Mother in that Nature which is above us, and without Fathen in ours; and without genealogy above (for who, it says, shall declare His generation?) and moreover, as King of Salem, which means Peace, and King of Righteousness, and as receiving tithes from Patriarchs, when they prevail over powers of evil. They are the titles of the Son. Walk through them, those that are lofty in a godlike manner; those that belong to the body in a manner suitable to them; or rather, altogether in a godlike manner, that you may become a god, ascending from below, for His sake Who came down from on high for ours. In all and above all keep to this, and you shall never err, either in the loftier or the lowlier names; Jesus Christ is the Same yesterday and today in the Incarnation, and in the Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.

The Third Theological Oration.

The Third Theological Oration.

On the Son.

On the Son.

I. This is what might be said to curb our opponents' eagerness to argue and their hasty approach that leads to uncertainty in all matters, especially in discussions about God. But since rebuking others is not difficult at all—in fact, it's very easy and anyone who wants to can do it—while replacing their beliefs with one's own is the task of a devout and thoughtful person, let us rely on the Holy Spirit, who is dishonored among them but worshiped among us, and bring our own understanding about the Godhead into the light, whatever it may be, like a noble and timely birth. Not that I have been silent at other times—on this subject alone I am full of youthful energy and courage—but the truth is that under present circumstances I am even bolder to proclaim the truth, so that I may not, by holding back, fall under the condemnation of displeasing God (to use the words of Scripture). And since every discourse has two aspects—one part establishing one's own position, and the other dismantling one's opponents' position—let us first state our own position, and then attempt to refute that of our opponents, doing both as briefly as possible. This way our arguments can be grasped at a glance (like those elementary handbooks they have created to deceive simple or foolish people), and our thoughts will not be scattered because of a lengthy discourse, like water that is not contained in a channel but flows uselessly across open ground.

I. This then is what might be said to cut short our opponents' readiness to argue and their hastiness with its consequent insecurity in all matters, but above all in those discussions which relate to God. But since to rebuke others is a matter of no difficulty whatever, but a very easy thing, which any one who likes can do; whereas to substitute one's own belief for theirs is the part of a pious and intelligent man; let us, relying on the Holy Ghost, Who among them is dishonoured, but among us is adored, bring forth to the light our own conceptions about the Godhead, whatever these may be, like some noble and timely birth. Not that I have at other times been silent; for on this subject alone I am full of youthful strength and daring; but the fact is that under present circumstances I am even more bold to declare the truth, that I may not (to use the words of Scripture) by drawing back fall into the condemnation of being displeasing to God. And since every discourse is of a twofold nature, the one part establishing one's own, and the other overthrowing one's opponents' position; let us first of all state our own position, and then try to controvert that of our opponents — and both as briefly as possible, so that our arguments may be taken in at a glance (like those of the elementary treatises which they have devised to deceive simple or foolish persons), and that our thoughts may not be scattered by reason of the length of the discourse, like water which is not contained in a channel, but flows to waste over the open land.

II. The three oldest beliefs about God are Anarchia, Polyarchia, and Monarchia. The first two are the playthings of the Greeks, and may they remain so. For Anarchia is something without order, and the rule of many is full of faction, and therefore anarchical, and therefore disorderly. Both of these lead to the same thing, namely disorder, and this leads to dissolution, for disorder is the first step toward dissolution.

II. The three most ancient opinions concerning God are Anarchia, Polyarchia, and Monarchia. The first two are the sport of the children of Hellas, and may they continue to be so. For Anarchy is a thing without order; and the Rule of Many is factious, and thus anarchical, and thus disorderly. For both these tend to the same thing, namely disorder; and this to dissolution, for disorder is the first step to dissolution.

But Monarchy is what we honor. However, it is a Monarchy not limited to one Person, since it is possible for Unity, if divided against itself, to fall into a condition of plurality. Rather, it is one made of an equality of physis and a union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements toward unity—something impossible for created nature—so that although numerically distinct, there is no division of ousia. Therefore Unity, having from all eternity arrived at Duality through motion, found its rest in Trinity. This is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Spirit. The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter—without passion, of course, and without reference to time, and not in a bodily manner. The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Spirit the Emission, for I do not know how this could be expressed in terms that completely exclude visible things. We will not dare to speak of an overflow of goodness, as one of the Greek philosophers dared to say, as if it were a bowl overflowing, and this in plain words in his discourse on the First and Second Causes. Let us never view this Generation as involuntary, like some natural overflow, difficult to restrain, and in no way fitting our understanding of Deity. Therefore let us stay within our limits and speak of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and That which proceeds from the Father, as God the Word Himself says somewhere.

But Monarchy is that which we hold in honour. It is, however, a Monarchy that is not limited to one Person, for it is possible for Unity if at variance with itself to come into a condition of plurality; but one which is made of an equality of Nature and a Union of mind, and an identity of motion, and a convergence of its elements to unity — a thing which is impossible to the created nature — so that though numerically distinct there is no severance of Essence. Therefore Unity having from all eternity arrived by motion at Duality, found its rest in Trinity. This is what we mean by Father and Son and Holy Ghost. The Father is the Begetter and the Emitter; without passion of course, and without reference to time, and not in a corporeal manner. The Son is the Begotten, and the Holy Ghost the Emission; for I know not how this could be expressed in terms altogether excluding visible things. For we shall not venture to speak of an overflow of goodness, as one of the Greek Philosophers dared to say, as if it were a bowl overflowing, and this in plain words in his Discourse on the First and Second Causes. Let us not ever look on this Generation as involuntary, like some natural overflow, hard to be retained, and by no means befitting our conception of Deity. Therefore let us confine ourselves within our limits, and speak of the Unbegotten and the Begotten and That which proceeds from the Father, as somewhere God the Word Himself says.

When did these come into being? They are above all "When." But if I may speak somewhat more boldly—when the Father did. And when did the Father come into being? There never was a time when He was not. The same is true of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Ask me again, and I will answer again: When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. And when did the Holy Spirit proceed? When the Son was—not proceeding but begotten—beyond the sphere of time and above the grasp of reason. Yet we cannot set forth what is above time if we avoid, as we wish to, any expression that conveys the idea of time. For such expressions as "when" and "before" and "after" and "from the beginning" are not timeless, no matter how much we may force them to be—unless perhaps we were to take the Aeon, that interval which is coextensive with eternal things and is not divided or measured by any motion or by the revolution of the sun, as time is measured.

III. When did these come into being? They are above all When. But, if I am to speak with something more of boldness — when the Father did. And when did the Father come into being. There never was a time when He was not. And the same thing is true of the Son and the Holy Ghost. Ask me again, and again I will answer you, When was the Son begotten? When the Father was not begotten. And when did the Holy Ghost proceed? When the Son was, not proceeding but, begotten — beyond the sphere of time, and above the grasp of reason; although we cannot set forth that which is above time, if we avoid as we desire any expression which conveys the idea of time. For such expressions as when and before and after and from the beginning are not timeless, however much we may force them; unless indeed we were to take the Æon, that interval which is coextensive with the eternal things, and is not divided or measured by any motion, or by the revolution of the sun, as time is measured.

How then are they not equally unoriginate if they are coeternal? Because they are from him, though not after him. For what is unoriginate is eternal, but what is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, as long as it can be traced back to the Father as its source. Therefore, in respect of cause they are not unoriginate; but it is clear that the cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light. And yet they are in some sense unoriginate with respect to time, even though you would frighten simple minds with your verbal tricks, for the sources of time are not subject to time.

How then are They not alike unoriginate, if They are coeternal? Because They are from Him, though not after Him. For that which is unoriginate is eternal, but that which is eternal is not necessarily unoriginate, so long as it may be referred to the Father as its origin. Therefore in respect of Cause They are not unoriginate; but it is evident that the Cause is not necessarily prior to its effects, for the sun is not prior to its light. And yet They are in some sense unoriginate, in respect of time, even though you would scare simple minds with your quibbles, for the Sources of Time are not subject to time.

IV. But how can this generation be passionless? Because it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, then incorporeal generation excludes it. And I will ask you in return: How is He God if He is created? For that which is created is not God. I will not even remind you that passion is present here too if we understand creation in a bodily sense—involving time, desire, imagination, thought, hope, pain, risk, failure, success, and many more things that belong to the creature, as everyone can see. In fact, I am amazed that you do not go so far as to think of marriages, periods of pregnancy, and dangers of miscarriage, as if the Father could not have begotten at all unless He had begotten in this way. Or again, that you did not list the modes of generation found in birds, beasts, and fish, and try to fit the Divine and Ineffable Generation under one of them, or even eliminate the Son entirely based on your new theory. And you cannot even see this: just as His generation according to the flesh differs from all others (for where among men do you find a Virgin Mother?), so too He differs in His spiritual generation. Or rather, He whose existence is not the same as ours differs from us in His generation as well.

IV. But how can this generation be passionless? In that it is incorporeal. For if corporeal generation involves passion, incorporeal generation excludes it. And I will ask of you in turn, How is He God if He is created? For that which is created is not God. I refrain from reminding you that here too is passion if we take the creation in a bodily sense, as time, desire, imagination, thought, hope, pain, risk, failure, success, all of which and more than all find a place in the creature, as is evident to every one. Nay, I marvel that you do not venture so far as to conceive of marriages and times of pregnancy, and dangers of miscarriage, as if the Father could not have begotten at all if He had not begotten thus; or again, that you did not count up the modes of generation of birds and beasts and fishes, and bring under some one of them the Divine and Ineffable Generation, or even eliminate the Son out of your new hypothesis. And you cannot even see this, that as His Generation according to the flesh differs from all others (for where among men do you know of a Virgin Mother?), so does He differ also in His spiritual Generation; or rather He, Whose Existence is not the same as ours, differs from us also in His Generation.

V. Who then is that Father who had no beginning? He is one whose very existence had no beginning, for anyone whose existence had a beginning must also have begun to be a Father. He did not become a Father after he began to exist, because his existence had no beginning. And he is Father in the absolute sense, because he is not also Son, just as the Son is Son in the absolute sense because he is not also Father. These names do not belong to us in the absolute sense, because we are both father and son, and not one more than the other. We come from both parents, not from one only, and so we are divided and gradually become men—perhaps not even truly men, and not the kind we intended to be—leaving others and being left by them, so that only the relationships remain without the underlying realities.

V. Who then is that Father Who had no beginning? One Whose very Existence had no beginning; for one whose existence had a beginning must also have begun to be a Father. He did not then become a Father after He began to be, for His being had no beginning. And He is Father in the absolute sense, for He is not also Son; just as the Son is Son in the absolute sense, because He is not also Father. These names do not belong to us in the absolute sense, because we are both, and not one more than the other; and we are of both, and not of one only; and so we are divided, and by degrees become men, and perhaps not even men, and such as we did not desire, leaving and being left, so that only the relations remain, without the underlying facts.

But the objector says that the very form of the expression "He begot" and "He was begotten" introduces the idea that generation had a beginning. But what if we don't use this expression and instead say "He had been begotten from the beginning," so that we can easily avoid your forced objections that are fixated on time? Will you then use Scripture against us, as if we were inventing something contrary to Scripture and to the truth? Everyone knows that in practice we very often find tenses exchanged when time is being discussed, and this is especially the custom of Holy Scripture—not only with respect to past and present tenses, but even with future tenses. For instance, "Why did the heathen rage?" when they had not yet raged, and "they shall cross over the river on foot," where the meaning is "they did cross over." It would take too long to count all the expressions of this kind that students have observed.

But, the objector says, the very form of the expression He begot and He was begotten, brings in the idea of a beginning of generation. But what if you do not use this expression, but say, He had been begotten from the beginning so as readily to evade your far-fetched and time-loving objections? Will you bring Scripture against us, as if we were forging something contrary to Scripture and to the truth? Why, every one knows that in practice we very often find tenses interchanged when time is spoken of; and especially is this the custom of Holy Scripture, not only in respect of the past tense, and of the present; but even of the future, as for instance Why did the heathen rage? when they had not yet raged and they shall cross over the river on foot, where the meaning is they did cross over. It would be a long task to reckon up all the expressions of this kind which students have noticed.

VI. So much for this point. What is their next objection, and how full of contentiousness and impudence it is? They say that the Father either begot the Son voluntarily or involuntarily. Then, as they think, they trap us on both sides with arguments—though these are not strong but very weak. For they say, if it was involuntarily, then He was under the control of someone else, and who exercised this control? And how is He who is controlled by another actually God? But if it was voluntarily, then the Son is a son of the Will. How then is He of the Father? In this way they invent a new kind of mother for him—the Will—in place of the Father. There is one good point they may claim about this argument of theirs: namely, that they abandon Passion and take refuge in Will. For Will is not Passion.

VI. So much for this point. What is their next objection, how full of contentiousness and impudence? He, they say, either voluntarily begot the Son, or else involuntarily. Next, as they think, they bind us on both sides with cords; these however are not strong, but very weak. For, they say, if it was involuntarily He was under the sway of some one, and who exercised this sway? And how is He, over whom it is exercised, God? But if voluntarily, the Son is a Son of Will; how then is He of the Father? — and they thus invent a new sort of Mother for him — the Will — in place of the Father. There is one good point which they may allege about this argument of theirs; namely, that they desert Passion, and take refuge in Will. For Will is not Passion.

Now let's examine the strength of their argument. It would be best to engage them directly at first. You yourself, who so recklessly assert whatever you please—were you begotten voluntarily or involuntarily by your father? If involuntarily, then he was under some tyrant's control (what terrible violence!), and who was the tyrant? You can hardly say it was nature, since nature tolerates celibacy. If it was voluntarily, then with a few words your father is eliminated, because you are shown to be the son of Will, not of your father. But I move to the relationship between God and creation, and I put your own question to your own wisdom. Did God create all things voluntarily or under compulsion? If under compulsion, here too is tyranny, and someone who acted as tyrant. If voluntarily, the creatures are also deprived of their God, and you first of all, who invent such arguments and logical tricks. For a partition is set up between the Creator and the creatures in the form of Will. And yet I think that the Person who wills is distinct from the act of willing; the one who begets from the act of begetting; the speaker from the speech—otherwise we are all very foolish. On one side we have the one who moves, and on the other that which is, so to speak, the motion. Thus the thing willed is not the child of will, for it does not always result from it; nor is that which is begotten the child of generation, nor that which is heard the child of speech, but of the Person who willed, or begot, or spoke. But the things of God are beyond all this, for with Him perhaps the Will to beget is generation, and there is no intermediate action (if we may accept this at all, rather than consider generation superior to will).

Secondly, let us look at the strength of their argument. And it were best to wrestle with them at first at close quarters. You yourself, who so recklessly assert whatever takes your fancy; were you begotten voluntarily or involuntarily by your father? If involuntarily, then he was under some tyrant's sway (O terrible violence!) and who was the tyrant? You will hardly say it was nature, — for nature is tolerant of chastity. If it was voluntarily, then by a few syllables your father is done away with, for you are shown to be the son of Will, and not of your father. But I pass to the relation between God and the creature, and I put your own question to your own wisdom. Did God create all things voluntarily or under compulsion? If under compulsion, here also is the tyranny, and one who played the tyrant; if voluntarily, the creatures also are deprived of their God, and you before the rest, who invent such arguments and tricks of logic. For a partition is set up between the Creator and the creatures in the shape of Will. And yet I think that the Person who wills is distinct from the Act of willing; He who begets from the Act of begetting; the Speaker from the speech, or else we are all very stupid. On the one side we have the mover, and on the other that which is, so to speak, the motion. Thus the thing willed is not the child of will, for it does not always result therefrom; nor is that which is begotten the child of generation, nor that which is heard the child of speech, but of the Person who willed, or begot, or spoke. But the things of God are beyond all this, for with Him perhaps the Will to beget is generation, and there is no intermediate action (if we may accept this altogether, and not rather consider generation superior to will).

Will you then let me play a little with this word Father, since your example encourages me to be so bold? The Father is God either willingly or unwillingly—and how will you escape from your own excessive cleverness? If willingly, when did He begin to will? It could not have been before He began to exist, for there was nothing before Him. Or is one part of Him Will and another the object of Will? If so, He is divisible. So the question arises, as a result of your argument, whether He Himself is not the child of Will. And if unwillingly, what compelled Him to exist, and how is He God if He was compelled—and compelled to nothing less than to be God? How then was He begotten, my opponent asks. How was He created, if as you say, He was created? For this is part of the same difficulty. Perhaps you would say, by Will and Word. You have not yet solved the whole difficulty, for it still remains for you to show how Will and Word gained the power to act. For man was not created in this way.

VII. Will you then let me play a little upon this word Father, for your example encourages me to be so bold? The Father is God either willingly or unwillingly; and how will you escape from your own excessive acuteness? If willingly, when did He begin to will? It could not have been before He began to be, for there was nothing prior to Him. Or is one part of Him Will and another the object of Will? If so, He is divisible. So the question arises, as the result of your argument, whether He Himself is not the Child of Will. And if unwillingly, what compelled Him to exist, and how is He God if He was compelled — and that to nothing less than to be God? How then was He begotten, says my opponent. How was He created, if as you say, He was created? For this is a part of the same difficulty. Perhaps you would say, By Will and Word. You have not yet solved the whole difficulty; for it yet remains for you to show how Will and Word gained the power of action. For man was not created in this way.

How then was He begotten? This Generation would have been no great thing if you could have understood it—you who don't really know even your own generation, or at least understand very little of it, and you're ashamed to speak of that little. And yet you think you know the whole? You will have to work very hard before you discover the laws of composition, formation, manifestation, and the bond by which soul is united to body—mind to soul, and reason to mind—and movement, growth, assimilation of food, sense, memory, recollection, and all the rest of the parts from which you are composed. Which of these belong to soul and body together, and which to each one independently of the other, and which is received from the other? For those parts whose maturity comes later nevertheless received their laws at the time of conception. Tell me what these laws are? And don't even then venture to speculate on the Generation of God, for that would be unsafe. For even if you knew all about your own generation, you still don't know anything about God's. And if you don't understand your own, how can you know about God's? For to the degree that God is harder to trace out than man, so is the heavenly Generation harder to comprehend than your own. But if you claim that because you cannot comprehend it, therefore He cannot have been begotten, it will be time for you to strike out many existing things which you cannot comprehend—and first of all God Himself. For you cannot say what He is, even if you are very reckless and excessively proud of your intelligence. First, cast away your notions of flow and divisions and sections, and your conceptions of immaterial birth as if it were material birth, and then you may perhaps worthily conceive of the Divine Generation. How was He begotten? I repeat the question in indignation. The Begetting of God must be honored by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that He was begotten. But the manner of His generation—we will not admit that even Angels can conceive it, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? It was in a manner known to the Father Who begot, and to the Son Who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud and escapes your dim sight.

VIII. How then was He begotten? This Generation would have been no great thing, if you could have comprehended it who have no real knowledge even of your own generation, or at least who comprehend very little of it, and of that little you are ashamed to speak; and then do you think you know the whole? You will have to undergo much labour before you discover the laws of composition, formation, manifestation, and the bond whereby soul is united to body — mind to soul, and reason to mind; and movement, increase, assimilation of food, sense, memory, recollection, and all the rest of the parts of which you are compounded; and which of them belongs to the soul and body together, and which to each independently of the other, and which is received from each other. For those parts whose maturity comes later, yet received their laws at the time of conception. Tell me what these laws are? And do not even then venture to speculate on the Generation of God; for that would be unsafe. For even if you knew all about your own, yet you do not by any means know about God's. And if you do not understand your own, how can you know about God's? For in proportion as God is harder to trace out than man, so is the heavenly Generation harder to comprehend than your own. But if you assert that because you cannot comprehend it, therefore He cannot have been begotten, it will be time for you to strike out many existing things which you cannot comprehend; and first of all God Himself. For you cannot say what He is, even if you are very reckless, and excessively proud of your intelligence. First, cast away your notions of flow and divisions and sections, and your conceptions of immaterial as if it were material birth, and then you may perhaps worthily conceive of the Divine Generation. How was He begotten?– I repeat the question in indignation. The Begetting of God must be honoured by silence. It is a great thing for you to learn that He was begotten. But the manner of His generation we will not admit that even Angels can conceive, much less you. Shall I tell you how it was? It was in a manner known to the Father Who begot, and to the Son Who was begotten. Anything more than this is hidden by a cloud, and escapes your dim sight.

Well, but the Father begot a Son who either already existed or did not exist. What utter nonsense! This is a question that applies to you or me, who on the one hand already existed—for instance, Levi in the loins of Abraham—and on the other hand came into existence. So in some sense we are partly from what existed and partly from what did not exist. The opposite is true of original matter, which was certainly created out of what did not exist, despite some claiming it is unbegotten. But in this case, being begotten is, even from the beginning, the same as existing. So what will you base this trick question on? For what is older than that which exists from the beginning, if we try to assign prior existence or non-existence to the Son? Either way, we destroy his claim to be the Beginning. Or perhaps you will say, if we asked you whether the Father was of existent or non-existent substance, that he is twofold—partly pre-existing, partly existing—or that his case is the same as the Son's: that he was created out of non-existing matter. All because of your ridiculous questions and your houses of sand, which cannot stand against the slightest ripple.

IX. Well, but the Father begot a Son who either was or was not in existence. What utter nonsense! This is a question which applies to you or me, who on the one hand were in existence, as for instance Levi in the loins of Abraham; Hebrews 7:10 and on the other hand came into existence; and so in some sense we are partly of what existed, and partly of what was nonexistent; whereas the contrary is the case with the original matter, which was certainly created out of what was non-existent, notwithstanding that some pretend that it is unbegotten. But in this case to be begotten, even from the beginning, is concurrent with to be. On what then will you base this captious question? For what is older than that which is from the beginning, if we may place there the previous existence or non- existence of the Son? In either case we destroy its claim to be the Beginning. Or perhaps you will say, if we were to ask you whether the Father was of existent or non-existent substance, that he is twofold, partly pre-existing, partly existing; or that His case is the same with that of the Son; that is, that He was created out of non-existing matter, because of your ridiculous questions and your houses of sand, which cannot stand against the merest ripple.

I do not accept either option, and I declare that your question contains an absurdity, not a difficulty to answer. However, if you think, according to your logical assumptions, that one or the other of these alternatives must necessarily be true in every case, let me ask you one small question: Is time in time, or is it not in time? If it is contained in time, then in what time, and what is it besides that time, and how does it contain it? But if it is not contained in time, what is that surpassing wisdom which can conceive of a time that is timeless? Now, regarding this statement, "I am now telling a lie," accept one of these alternatives: either that it is true, or that it is false, without qualification (for we cannot admit that it is both). But this cannot be done. For necessarily he is either lying, and so is telling the truth, or else he is telling the truth, and so is lying. What wonder is it then that, just as in this case opposites are true, so in that case they should both be untrue, and so your clever puzzle proves mere foolishness? Solve one more riddle for me. Were you present at your own generation, and are you now present to yourself, or is neither the case? If you were and are present, who were you, and with whom are you present? And how did your single self become both subject and object in this way? But if neither of the above is the case, how did you get separated from yourself, and what is the cause of this separation? But you will say it is stupid to make a fuss about the question whether or not a single individual is present to himself, for the expression is not used of oneself but of others. Well, you may be certain that it is even more stupid to discuss the question whether That which was begotten from the beginning existed before its generation or not. For such a question arises only regarding matter divisible by time.

I do not admit either solution, and I declare that your question contains an absurdity, and not a difficulty to answer. If however you think, in accordance with your dialectic assumptions, that one or other of these alternatives must necessarily be true in every case, let me ask you one little question: Is time in time, or is it not in time? If it is contained in time, then in what time, and what is it but that time, and how does it contain it? But if it is not contained in time, what is that surpassing wisdom which can conceive of a time which is timeless? Now, in regard to this expression, I am now telling a lie, admit one of these alternatives, either that it is true, or that it is a falsehood, without qualification (for we cannot admit that it is both). But this cannot be. For necessarily he either is lying, and so is telling the truth, or else he is telling the truth, and so is lying. What wonder is it then that, as in this case contraries are true, so in that case they should both be untrue, and so your clever puzzle prove mere foolishness? Solve me one more riddle. Were you present at your own generation, and are you now present to yourself, or is neither the case? If you were and are present, who were you, and with whom are you present? And how did your single self become thus both subject and object? But if neither of the above is the case, how did you get separated from yourself, and what is the cause of this disjoining? But, you will say, it is stupid to make a fuss about the question whether or no a single individual is present to himself; for the expression is not used of oneself but of others. Well, you may be certain that it is even more stupid to discuss the question whether That which was begotten from the beginning existed before its generation or not. For such a question arises only as to matter divisible by time.

But they say, "The Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same; and if this is so, then the Son is not the same as the Father either." It is obvious, without needing to spell it out, that this line of reasoning clearly excludes either the Son or the Father from the Godhead. For if being Unbegotten is the essence of God, then being begotten is not that essence; if the reverse is true, then the Unbegotten is excluded. What argument can refute this? So choose whichever blasphemy you prefer, my friend who invents new theology, if you are determined at all costs to embrace a blasphemy. Next, in what sense do you claim that the Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same? If you mean that the Uncreated and the created are not the same, I agree with you, for certainly the Unoriginate and the created are not of the same nature. But if you say that He who begot and that which is begotten are not the same, the statement is inaccurate. For it is in fact a necessary truth that they are the same. The nature of the relation of Father to child is this: that the offspring is of the same nature as the parent. Or we can argue it this way again: What do you mean by Unbegotten and Begotten? If you mean the simple fact of being unbegotten or begotten, these are not the same; but if you mean those to whom these terms apply, how are they not the same? For example, wisdom and unwisdom are not the same in themselves, yet both are attributes of man, who is the same; and they mark not a difference of essence, but one external to the essence. Are immortality and innocence and immutability also the essence of God? If so, God has many essences and not one; or Deity is a compound of these. For He cannot be all these without composition, if they are essences.

X. But they say, The Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same; and if this is so, neither is the Son the same as the Father. It is clear, without saying so, that this line of argument manifestly excludes either the Son or the Father from the Godhead. For if to be Unbegotten is the Essence of God, to be begotten is not that Essence; if the opposite is the case, the Unbegotten is excluded. What argument can contradict this? Choose then whichever blasphemy you prefer, my good inventor of a new theology, if indeed you are anxious at all costs to embrace a blasphemy. In the next place, in what sense do you assert that the Unbegotten and the Begotten are not the same? If you mean that the Uncreated and the created are not the same, I agree with you; for certainly the Unoriginate and the created are not of the same nature. But if you say that He That begot and That which is begotten are not the same, the statement is inaccurate. For it is in fact a necessary truth that they are the same. For the nature of the relation of Father to Child is this, that the offspring is of the same nature with the parent. Or we may argue thus again. What do you mean by Unbegotten and Begotten, for if you mean the simple fact of being unbegotten or begotten, these are not the same; but if you mean Those to Whom these terms apply, how are They not the same? For example, Wisdom and Unwisdom are not the same in themselves, but yet both are attributes of man, who is the same; and they mark not a difference of essence, but one external to the essence. Are immortality and innocence and immutability also the essence of God? If so God has many essences and not one; or Deity is a compound of these. For He cannot be all these without composition, if they be essences.

They don't actually claim this, however, because these qualities belong to other beings as well. God's essence must be something that belongs to God alone and is unique to Him. But those who consider matter and form to be unbegotten would not agree that being unbegotten is God's exclusive property (for we must push even further away the darkness of the Manicheans). Yet suppose it is God's property alone. What about Adam? Was he not uniquely the direct creation of God? Yes, you would say. Was he then the only human being? Certainly not. And why not? Because humanity is not defined by being directly created. For what is begotten is also human. In the same way, He who is Unbegotten is not the only God, though He alone is Father. But grant that He who is Begotten is God, for He is from God, as you must admit, even though you cling to your Unbegotten. Then how do you describe God's essence? You don't by declaring what it is, but by rejecting what it is not. Your word only means that He is not begotten; it doesn't show you what the actual nature or condition is of that which has no generation. What then is God's essence? It's for your presumption to define this, since you're so concerned about His generation too. But for us it will be a very great thing if we ever learn this, even in the future, when this darkness and dullness is removed from us, as He who cannot lie has promised. This then may be the thought and hope of those who are purifying themselves for this purpose. But we for our part will be bold enough to say this much: if it is a great thing for the Father to be Unoriginate, it is no less a thing for the Son to have been begotten of such a Father. For not only would He share the glory of the Unoriginate, since He is from the Unoriginate, but He has the added glory of His generation, something so great and magnificent in the eyes of all who are not completely base and materialistic in their thinking.

XI. They do not however assert this, for these qualities are common also to other beings. But God's Essence is that which belongs to God alone, and is proper to Him. But they, who consider matter and form to be unbegotten, would not allow that to be unbegotten is the property of God alone (for we must cast away even further the darkness of the Manichæans). But suppose that it is the property of God alone. What of Adam? Was he not alone the direct creature of God? Yes, you will say. Was he then the only human being? By no means. And why, but because humanity does not consist in direct creation? For that which is begotten is also human. Just so neither is He Who is Unbegotten alone God, though He alone is Father. But grant that He Who is Begotten is God; for He is of God, as you must allow, even though you cling to your Unbegotten. Then how do you describe the Essence of God? Not by declaring what it is, but by rejecting what it is not. For your word signifies that He is not begotten; it does not present to you what is the real nature or condition of that which has no generation. What then is the Essence of God? It is for your infatuation to define this, since you are so anxious about His Generation too; but to us it will be a very great thing, if ever, even in the future, we learn this, when this darkness and dulness is done away for us, as He has promised Who cannot lie. This then may be the thought and hope of those who are purifying themselves with a view to this. Thus much we for our part will be bold to say, that if it is a great thing for the Father to be Unoriginate, it is no less a thing for the Son to have been Begotten of such a Father. For not only would He share the glory of the Unoriginate, since he is of the Unoriginate, but he has the added glory of His Generation, a thing so great and august in the eyes of all those who are not altogether grovelling and material in mind.

But, they say, if the Son is the same as the Father in respect of ousia, then if the Father is unbegotten, the Son must be so likewise. Quite so—if the ousia of God consists in being unbegotten; and so He would be a strange mixture, begottenly unbegotten. If, however, the difference is outside the ousia, how can you be so certain in speaking of this? Are you also your father's father, so as in no respect to fall short of your father, since you are the same with him in ousia? Is it not evident that our inquiry into the nature of the ousia of God, if we make it, will leave personality absolutely unaffected? But that Unbegotten is not a synonym of God is proved thus. If it were so, it would be necessary that since God is a relative term, Unbegotten should be so likewise; or that since Unbegotten is an absolute term, so must God be—God of no one. For words which are absolutely identical are similarly applied. But the word Unbegotten is not used relatively. For to what is it relative? And of what things is God the God? Why, of all things. How then can God and Unbegotten be identical terms? And again, since Begotten and Unbegotten are contradictories, like possession and deprivation, it would follow that contradictory ousiai would co-exist, which is impossible. Or again, since possessions are prior to deprivations, and the latter are destructive of the former, not only must the ousia of the Son be prior to that of the Father, but it must be destroyed by the Father, on your hypothesis.

XII. But, they say, if the Son is the Same as the Father in respect of Essence, then if the Father is unbegotten, the Son must be so likewise. Quite so — if the Essence of God consists in being unbegotten; and so He would be a strange mixture, begottenly unbegotten. If, however, the difference is outside the Essence, how can you be so certain in speaking of this? Are you also your father's father, so as in no respect to fall short of your father, since you are the same with him in essence? Is it not evident that our enquiry into the Nature of the Essence of God, if we make it, will leave Personality absolutely unaffected? But that Unbegotten is not a synonym of God is proved thus. If it were so, it would be necessary that since God is a relative term, Unbegotten should be so likewise; or that since Unbegotten is an absolute term, so must God be….God of no one. For words which are absolutely identical are similarly applied. But the word Unbegotten is not used relatively. For to what is it relative? And of what things is God the God? Why, of all things. How then can God and Unbegotten be identical terms? And again, since Begotten and Unbegotten are contradictories, like possession and deprivation, it would follow that contradictory essences would co-exist, which is impossible. Or again, since possessions are prior to deprivations, and the latter are destructive of the former, not only must the Essence of the Son be prior to that of the Father, but it must be destroyed by the Father, on your hypothesis.

XIII. What's left of their supposedly unbeatable arguments? Perhaps the last refuge they'll take is this: If God has never stopped begetting, the Generation is imperfect—and when will He stop? But if He has stopped, then He must have started. So once again these fleshly minds put forward fleshly arguments. Whether He is eternally begotten or not, I don't yet say, until I have examined the statement "Before all the hills He begets Me" (Proverbs 8:25) more carefully. But I can't see why their conclusion has to follow. For if, as they claim, everything that comes to an end also had a beginning, then surely whatever has no end had no beginning. What, then, will they decide about the soul or the angelic nature? If it had a beginning, it will also have an end; and if it has no end, then by their logic it had no beginning. But the truth is that it had a beginning and will never have an end. Their claim, then, that whatever will have an end also had a beginning, is false. Our position, however, is this: just as with a horse, an ox, or a human being, the same definition applies to all individuals of the same species, and whatever shares the definition also has a right to the name, so in exactly the same way there is one ousia of God, and one nature, and one name. Although we use distinct names according to distinctions in our thought, whatever is properly called by this name really is God, and what He is in nature, that He is truly called—at least if we hold that truth is a matter not of names but of realities. But our opponents, as if they were afraid of leaving any stone unturned to overturn the truth, do acknowledge that the Son is God when forced to by arguments and evidence, but they only mean that He is God in an ambiguous sense, and that He only shares the name.

XIII. What now remains of their invincible arguments? Perhaps the last they will take refuge in is this. If God has never ceased to beget, the Generation is imperfect; and when will He cease? But if He has ceased, then He must have begun. Thus again these carnal minds bring forward carnal arguments. Whether He is eternally begotten or not, I do not yet say, until I have looked into the statement, Before all the hills He begets Me, Proverbs 8:25 more accurately. But I cannot see the necessity of their conclusion. For if, as they say, everything that is to come to an end had also a beginning, then surely that which has no end had no beginning. What then will they decide concerning the soul, or the Angelic nature? If it had a beginning, it will also have an end; and if it has no end, it is evident that according to them it had no beginning. But the truth is that it had a beginning, and will never have an end. Their assertion, then, that which will have an end had also a beginning, is untrue. Our position, however, is, that as in the case of a horse, or an ox, or a man, the same definition applies to all the individuals of the same species, and whatever shares the definition has also a right to the Name; so in the very same way there is One Essence of God, and One Nature, and One Name; although in accordance with a distinction in our thoughts we use distinct Names and that whatever is properly called by this Name really is God; and what He is in Nature, That He is truly called — if at least we are to hold that Truth is a matter not of names but of realities. But our opponents, as if they were afraid of leaving any stone unturned to subvert the Truth, acknowledge indeed that the Son is God when they are compelled to do so by arguments and evidences; but they only mean that He is God in an ambiguous sense, and that He only shares the Name.

When we raise this objection against them—What are you trying to say? That the Son is not truly God, just as a picture of an animal is not truly an animal? And if He is not truly God, in what sense is He God at all?—they reply, "Why can't these terms be ambiguous and yet still be used properly in both cases?" They give us examples like the land-dog and the dogfish, where the word "dog" is ambiguous, yet properly used in both cases, since this kind of ambiguity exists in language, or any other case where the same name is used for two things of different nature. But listen, in this case when you group two natures under the same name, you are not claiming that one is better than the other, or that one comes before the other, or that one possesses more of the named quality and the other less, because there is no logical connection forcing this necessity on them. One is not more of a dog than the other, and one less so—neither the dogfish more than the land-dog, nor the land-dog more than the dogfish. Why would they be, or based on what principle? The shared name here applies to things of equal value, though of different nature. But in the case we are discussing, you attach the Name of God to adorable Majesty and make it surpass every essence and physis (an attribute of God alone), and then you assign this Name to the Father while stripping it from the Son, making Him subject to the Father and giving Him only secondary honor and worship. Even if in words you grant Him equal status, in practice you cut off His Deity and shift maliciously from using the same Name to imply exact equality to using it to connect things that are not equal. So in your argument, the painted and living man become a more fitting illustration of the relations of Deity than the dogs I mentioned as an example. Either that, or you must grant both equal dignity of nature as well as a common name—even though you introduced these natures into your argument as different—and thus you destroy the analogy of your dogs, which you invented as an example of inequality. For what is the point of your example of ambiguity if those you distinguish are not equal in honor? You did not take refuge in your dogs to prove equality but inequality. How could anyone be more clearly caught fighting both against his own arguments and against the Deity?

XIV. And when we advance this objection against them, What do you mean to say then? That the Son is not properly God, just as a picture of an animal is not properly an animal? And if not properly God, in what sense is He God at all? They reply, Why should not these terms be ambiguous, and in both cases be used in a proper sense? And they will give us such instances as the land-dog and the dogfish; where the word Dog is ambiguous, and yet in both cases is properly used, for there is such a species among the ambiguously named, or any other case in which the same appellative is used for two things of different nature. But, my good friend, in this case, when you include two natures under the same name, you do not assert that either is better than the other, or that the one is prior and the other posterior, or that one is in a greater degree and the other in a lesser that which is predicated of them both, for there is no connecting link which forces this necessity upon them. One is not a dog more than the other, and one less so; either the dogfish more than the land-dog, or the land-dog than the dogfish. Why should they be, or on what principle? But the community of name is here between things of equal value, though of different nature. But in the case of which we are speaking, you couple the Name of God with adorable Majesty, and make It surpass every essence and nature (an attribute of God alone), and then you ascribe this Name to the Father, while you deprive the Son of it, and make Him subject to the Father, and give Him only a secondary honour and worship; and even if in words you bestow on Him one which is Equal, yet in practice you cut off His Deity, and pass malignantly from a use of the same Name implying an exact equality, to one which connects things which are not equal. And so the pictured and the living man are in your mouth an apter illustration of the relations of Deity than the dogs which I instanced. Or else you must concede to both an equal dignity of nature as well as a common name — even though you introduced these natures into your argument as different; and thus you destroy the analogy of your dogs, which you invented as an instance of inequality. For what is the force of your instance of ambiguity, if those whom you distinguish are not equal in honour? For it was not to prove an equality but an inequality that you took refuge in your dogs. How could anybody be more clearly convicted of fighting both against his own arguments, and against the Deity?

When we admit that the Father is greater than the Son in respect of being the Cause, they may assume the premise that He is the Cause by nature (physis), and then conclude that He is also greater by nature. If they do this, it's hard to say whether they mislead themselves more or those they're arguing with. Just because something is true of a whole class doesn't mean it's true of every individual member of that class in the same way, since different particulars may apply to different individuals. What stops me from taking the same premise—that the Father is greater by nature—and then adding another premise: "Yet not by nature greater in every respect, nor Father in every respect"—and concluding, "Therefore the Greater is not in every respect greater, nor the Father in every respect Father"? Or if you prefer, let's put it this way: God is an ousia. But an ousia is not in every case God. Draw the conclusion yourself—therefore God is not in every case God. I think the mistake here is what logicians technically call arguing from a conditioned to an unconditioned use of a term. We assign the word "Greater" to His nature viewed as a Cause, but they infer it of His nature viewed in itself. It's like when we say someone is a dead man, and they conclude simply that he's a man.

XV. And if, when we admit that in respect of being the Cause the Father is greater than the Son, they should assume the premiss that He is the Cause by Nature, and then deduce the conclusion that He is greater by Nature also, it is difficult to say whether they mislead most themselves or those with whom they are arguing. For it does not absolutely follow that all that is predicated of a class can also be predicated of all the individuals composing it; for the different particulars may belong to different individuals. For what hinders me, if I assume the same premiss, namely, that the Father is greater by Nature, and then add this other, Yet not by nature in every respect greater nor yet Father — from concluding, Therefore the Greater is not in every respect greater, nor the Father in every respect Father? Or, if you prefer it, let us put it in this way: God is an Essence: But an Essence is not in every case God; and draw the conclusion for yourself — Therefore God is not in every case God. I think the fallacy here is the arguing from a conditioned to an unconditioned use of a term, to use the technical expression of the logicians. For while we assign this word Greater to His Nature viewed as a Cause, they infer it of His Nature viewed in itself. It is just as if when we said that such a one was a dead man they were to infer simply that he was a Man.

How can we pass over the following point, which is no less remarkable than the rest? They say that "Father" is a name either of an ousia or of an action, thinking they can trap us either way. If we say it names an ousia, they will claim we agree with them that the Son is of another ousia, since there is only one ousia of God, which according to them is already occupied by the Father. On the other hand, if we say it names an action, we will seem to be admitting plainly that the Son is created and not begotten. For where there is an agent, there must also be an effect. And they will say they wonder how what is made can be identical with what made it. I myself would have been troubled by your distinction if it were necessary to accept one or the other option, rather than rejecting both and stating a third and truer option: that "Father" is not a name either of an ousia or of an action, most clever sirs. Rather, it is the name of the relation in which the Father stands to the Son, and the Son to the Father. For just as among us these names indicate a genuine and close relationship, so in this case too they denote an identity of nature between the one who is begotten and the one who begets. But let us grant you that "Father" names an ousia—it will still bring in the idea of Son, and will not make it of a different nature, according to common understanding and the meaning of these names. Let it be, if you wish, the name of an action—you will not defeat us this way either. The homoousios (of the same essence) would indeed be the result of this action; otherwise the notion of an action in this matter would be absurd. You see then how, even when you try to fight unfairly, we avoid your tricks. But now, since we have confirmed how invincible you are in your arguments and sophistries, let us examine your strength in the divine Scriptures, to see if perhaps you may choose to persuade us from them.

XVI. How shall we pass over the following point, which is no less amazing than the rest? Father, they say, is a name either of an essence or of an Action, thinking to bind us down on both sides. If we say that it is a name of an essence, they will say that we agree with them that the Son is of another Essence, since there is but one Essence of God, and this, according to them, is preoccupied by the Father. On the other hand, if we say that it is the name of an Action, we shall be supposed to acknowledge plainly that the Son is created and not begotten. For where there is an Agent there must also be an Effect. And they will say they wonder how that which is made can be identical with That which made it. I should myself have been frightened with your distinction, if it had been necessary to accept one or other of the alternatives, and not rather put both aside, and state a third and truer one, namely, that Father is not a name either of an essence or of an action, most clever sirs. But it is the name of the Relation in which the Father stands to the Son, and the Son to the Father. For as with us these names make known a genuine and intimate relation, so, in the case before us too, they denote an identity of nature between Him That is begotten and Him That begets. But let us concede to you that Father is a name of essence, it will still bring in the idea of Son, and will not make it of a different nature, according to common ideas and the force of these names. Let it be, if it so please you, the name of an action; you will not defeat us in this way either. The Homoousion would be indeed the result of this action, or otherwise the conception of an action in this matter would be absurd. You see then how, even though you try to fight unfairly, we avoid your sophistries. But now, since we have ascertained how invincible you are in your arguments and sophistries, let us look at your strength in the Oracles of God, if perchance you may choose to persuade us out of them.

We have learned to believe in and to teach the deity of the Son from their great and lofty statements. And what statements are these? These: God—The Word—He who was in the beginning and with the beginning, and the beginning itself. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," and "With you is the beginning," and he who calls her "the beginning from generations." Then the Son is only-begotten: "The only-begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he has revealed him." The Way, the Truth, the Life, the Light. "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life," and "I am the Light of the World." Wisdom and Power: "Christ, the Wisdom of God and the Power of God." The radiance, the exact representation, the image, the seal: "Who being the radiance of his glory and the exact representation of his essence (ousia)," and "the image of his goodness," and "him God the Father has sealed." Lord, King, He who is, the Almighty: "The Lord rained down fire from the Lord," and "A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom," and "who is and was and is to come, the Almighty"—all of which are clearly spoken of the Son, along with all the other passages of the same force. None of these is an afterthought or something added later to the Son or the Spirit, any more than to the Father himself. For their perfection is not affected by additions. There never was a time when he was without the Word, or when he was not the Father, or when he was not true, or not wise, or not powerful, or lacking life, or radiance, or goodness.

XVII. For we have learned to believe in and to teach the Deity of the Son from their great and lofty utterances. And what utterances are these? These: God — The Word — He That Was In The Beginning and With The Beginning, and The Beginning. In the Beginning was The Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God, John 1:1 and With You is the Beginning, and He who calls her The Beginning from generations. Isaiah 41:4 Then the Son is Only-begotten: The only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, it says, He has declared Him. John 1:18 The Way, the Truth, the Life, the Light. I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life; and I am the Light of the World. Wisdom and Power, Christ, the Wisdom of God, and the Power of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24 The Effulgence, the Impress, the Image, the Seal; Who being the Effulgence of His glory and the Impress of His Essence, and the Image of His Goodness, Wisdom 7:26 and Him has God the Father sealed. John 6:27 Lord, King, He That Is, The Almighty. The Lord rained down fire from the Lord; Genesis 19:24 and A sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Your Kingdom; and Which is and was and is to come, the Almighty Revelation 1:8 — all which are clearly spoken of the Son, with all the other passages of the same force, none of which is an afterthought, or added later to the Son or the Spirit, any more than to the Father Himself. For Their Perfection is not affected by additions. There never was a time when He was without the Word, or when He was not the Father, or when He was not true, or not wise, or not powerful, or devoid of life, or of splendour, or of goodness.

But against all these, count up for me the expressions that support your ignorant arrogance, such as "My God and your God," or "greater," or "created," or "made," or "sanctified." Add, if you like, "Servant" and "Obedient" and "Gave" and "Learnt," and "was commanded," "was sent," "can do nothing of Himself," whether it concerns speaking, judging, giving, or willing. And then there are these: His ignorance, subjection, prayer, asking, increase, being made perfect. And if you want even more humble things than these, such as speak of His sleeping, hungering, being in agony, and fearing—or perhaps you would even make His Cross and Death a matter of reproach to Him. His Resurrection and Ascension I suppose you will leave to me, since these contain something that supports our position. You could pick up many other things too, if you want to assemble that equivocal and intruding god of yours, who to us is True God, and equal to the Father. For every one of these points, taken separately, can very easily be explained to you in the most reverent sense if we go through them one by one, and the stumbling-block of the letter can be cleared away—that is, if your stumbling at it is honest and not deliberately malicious. To give you the explanation in one sentence: What is lofty you are to apply to the Godhead, and to that Nature in Him which is superior to sufferings and incorporeal; but all that is lowly you are to apply to the composite condition of Him who for your sakes emptied Himself and was Incarnate—yes, for it is no worse to say, was made Man, and afterwards was also exalted. The result will be that you will abandon these fleshly and groveling doctrines, and learn to be more sublime, and to ascend with His Godhead, and you will not remain permanently among the things of sight, but will rise up with Him into the world of thought, and come to know which passages refer to His Nature, and which to His assumption of Human Nature.

But in opposition to all these, do you reckon up for me the expressions which make for your ignorant arrogance, such as My God and your God, or greater, or created, or made, or sanctified; Add, if you like, Servant Philippians 2:7 and Obedient Philippians 2:8 and Gave John 1:12 and Learnt, Hebrews 5:8 and was commanded, was sent, can do nothing of Himself, either say, or judge, or give, or will. And further these — His ignorance, Mark 13:32 subjection, 1 Corinthians 15:28 prayer, Luke 6:12 asking, John 14:16 increase, Luke 2:52 being made perfect. And if you like even more humble than these; such as speak of His sleeping, hungering, being in an agony, Luke 22:44 and fearing; Hebrews 5:7 or perhaps you would make even His Cross and Death a matter of reproach to Him. His Resurrection and Ascension I fancy you will leave to me, for in these is found something to support our position. A good many other things too you might pick up, if you desire to put together that equivocal and intruded god of yours, Who to us is True God, and equal to the Father. For every one of these points, taken separately, may very easily, if we go through them one by one, be explained to you in the most reverent sense, and the stumbling-block of the letter be cleaned away — that is, if your stumbling at it be honest, and not wilfully malicious. To give you the explanation in one sentence. What is lofty you are to apply to the Godhead, and to that Nature in Him which is superior to sufferings and incorporeal; but all that is lowly to the composite condition of Him who for your sakes made Himself of no reputation and was Incarnate — yes, for it is no worse thing to say, was made Man, and afterwards was also exalted. The result will be that you will abandon these carnal and grovelling doctrines, and learn to be more sublime, and to ascend with His Godhead, and you will not remain permanently among the things of sight, but will rise up with Him into the world of thought, and come to know which passages refer to His Nature, and which to His assumption of Human Nature.

For the One you now treat with contempt was once above you. He Who is now Man was once uncompounded. What He was He continued to be; what He was not He took upon Himself. In the beginning He existed, uncaused—for what is the Cause of God? But later, for a specific cause, He was born. And that cause was so that you might be saved, you who insult Him and despise His Godhead because He took upon Himself your denser nature, entering into relationship with Flesh by means of Mind. While His inferior nature, the Humanity, became God because it was united to God and became one prosopon because the Higher Nature prevailed—in order that I too might be made God to the extent that He is made Man. He was born—but He had been begotten. He was born of a woman—but she was a virgin. The first is human, the second divine. In His human nature He had no father, but also in His divine nature no mother. Both of these belong to Godhead. He dwelt in the womb—but He was recognized by the prophet, himself still in the womb, leaping before the Word for Whose sake he came into being. He was wrapped in swaddling clothes—but He removed the burial cloths of the grave by His rising again. He was laid in a manger—but He was glorified by angels, proclaimed by a star, and worshiped by the Magi. Why are you offended by what is presented to your sight, when you will not look at what is presented to your mind? He was driven into exile in Egypt—but He drove away the Egyptian idols. He had no form or comeliness in the eyes of the Jews—but to David He is fairer than the children of men. And on the mountain He was bright as lightning and became more luminous than the sun, initiating us into the mystery of the future.

XIX. For He Whom you now treat with contempt was once above you. He Who is now Man was once the Uncompounded. What He was He continued to be; what He was not He took to Himself. In the beginning He was, uncaused; for what is the Cause of God? But afterwards for a cause He was born. And that cause was that you might be saved, who insult Him and despise His Godhead, because of this, that He took upon Him your denser nature, having converse with Flesh by means of Mind. While His inferior Nature, the Humanity, became God, because it was united to God, and became One Person because the Higher Nature prevailed in order that I too might be made God so far as He is made Man. He was born — but He had been begotten: He was born of a woman — but she was a Virgin. The first is human, the second Divine. In His Human nature He had no Father, but also in His Divine Nature no Mother. Both these belong to Godhead. He dwelt in the womb — but He was recognized by the Prophet, himself still in the womb, leaping before the Word, for Whose sake He came into being. He was wrapped in swaddling clothes Luke 2:41 — but He took off the swathing bands of the grave by His rising again. He was laid in a manger — but He was glorified by Angels, and proclaimed by a star, and worshipped by the Magi. Why are you offended by that which is presented to your sight, because you will not look at that which is presented to your mind? He was driven into exile into Egypt — but He drove away the Egyptian idols. He had no form nor comeliness in the eyes of the Jews Isaiah 53:2 — but to David He is fairer than the children of men. And on the Mountain He was bright as the lightning, and became more luminous than the sun, Matthew 17:2 initiating us into the mystery of the future.

He was baptized as a man, but He forgave sins as God—not because He needed purification Himself, but so that He might sanctify the element of water. He was tempted as a man, but He conquered as God. Yes, He tells us to be of good cheer, for He has overcome the world. He hungered, but He fed thousands. Yes, He is the Bread that gives life, and that comes from heaven. He thirsted, but He cried out, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink." Yes, He promised that fountains would flow from those who believe. He was weary, but He is the rest of those who are weary and heavy laden. He was heavy with sleep, but He walked lightly over the sea. He rebuked the winds. He made Peter light as he began to sink. He pays tribute, but it is from a fish. Yes, He is the King of those who demanded it. He is called a Samaritan and a demoniac, but He saves the man who came down from Jerusalem and fell among thieves. The demons acknowledge Him, and He drives out demons and sinks legions of foul spirits in the sea, and sees the Prince of the demons falling like lightning. He is stoned, but is not taken. He prays, but He hears prayer. He weeps, but He causes tears to cease. He asks where Lazarus was laid, for He was man, but He raises Lazarus, for He was God. He is sold, and very cheaply—for only thirty pieces of silver—but He redeems the world, and at a great price, for the price was His own blood. As a sheep He is led to the slaughter, but He is the Shepherd of Israel, and now of the whole world also. As a lamb He is silent, yet He is the Word, and is proclaimed by the voice of one crying in the wilderness. He is bruised and wounded, but He heals every disease and every infirmity. He is lifted up and nailed to the tree, but by the tree of life He restores us. Yes, He saves even the robber crucified with Him. Yes, He wrapped the visible world in darkness. He is given vinegar to drink mixed with gall. Who? He who turned the water into wine, who is the destroyer of the bitter taste, who is sweetness and altogether desire. He lays down His life, but He has power to take it again, and the veil is torn, for the mysterious doors of heaven are opened. The rocks are split, the dead arise. He dies, but He gives life, and by His death destroys death. He is buried, but He rises again. He goes down into hell, but He brings up the souls. He ascends to heaven, and shall come again to judge the living and the dead, and to put to the test such words as yours. If the one gives you a starting point for your error, let the others put an end to it.

XX. He was baptized as Man — but He remitted sins as God — not because He needed purificatory rites Himself, but that He might sanctify the element of water. He was tempted as Man, but He conquered as God; yea, He bids us be of good cheer, for He has overcome the world. John 16:33 He hungered — but He fed thousands; yea, He is the Bread that gives life, and That is of heaven. He thirsted — but He cried, If any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink. Yea, He promised that fountains should flow from them that believe. He was wearied, but He is the Rest of them that are weary and heavy laden. Matthew 11:28 He was heavy with sleep, but He walked lightly over the sea. He rebuked the winds, He made Peter light as he began to sink. He pays tribute, but it is out of a fish; yea, He is the King of those who demanded it. John 19:19 He is called a Samaritan and a demoniac; — but He saves him that came down from Jerusalem and fell among thieves; the demons acknowledge Him, and He drives out demons and sinks in the sea legions of foul spirits, Luke 8:28-33 and sees the Prince of the demons falling like lightning. He is stoned, but is not taken. He prays, but He hears prayer. He weeps, but He causes tears to cease. He asks where Lazarus was laid, for He was Man; but He raises Lazarus, for He was God. John 11:43 He is sold, and very cheap, for it is only for thirty pieces of silver; Matthew 26:15 but He redeems the world, and that at a great price, for the Price was His own blood. 1 Peter 1:19 As a sheep He is led to the slaughter, Isaiah 53:7 but He is the Shepherd of Israel, and now of the whole world also. As a Lamb He is silent, yet He is the Word, and is proclaimed by the Voice of one crying in the wilderness. John 1:23 He is bruised and wounded, but He heals every disease and every infirmity. Isaiah 53:23 He is lifted up and nailed to the Tree, but by the Tree of Life He restores us; yea, He saves even the Robber crucified with Him; Luke 23:43 yea, He wrapped the visible world in darkness. He is given vinegar to drink mingled with gall. Who? He who turned the water into wine John 2:1-11, who is the destroyer of the bitter taste, who is Sweetness and altogether desire. Song of Songs 5:16 He lays down His life, but He has power to take it again; John 10:18 and the veil is rent, for the mysterious doors of Heaven are opened; the rocks are cleft, the dead arise. Matthew 27:51 He dies, but He gives life, and by His death destroys death. He is buried, but He rises again; He goes down into Hell, but He brings up the souls; He ascends to Heaven, and shall come again to judge the quick and the dead, and to put to the test such words as yours. If the one give you a starting point for your error, let the others put an end to it.

This, then, is our answer to those who try to confuse us. We do not give it willingly—for idle talk and disputes over words are not fitting for the faithful, and we already have one Adversary, which is enough—but out of necessity, because of those who attack us. Just as medicine exists because of disease, we respond so they may come to see that they are not all-knowing or unbeatable in those pointless arguments that undermine the Gospel. For when we stop believing and rely only on the strength of human reasoning, when we destroy the Spirit's claim on our faith through endless questioning, and when our reasoning proves inadequate for the weight of the subject—as it must, since it operates through something as limited as our human mind—what happens? The weakness of the argument seems to belong to the mystery itself, and so eloquent speech makes the Cross meaningless, as Paul also recognized. For it is faith that completes our reasoning. But may He who proclaims unity and releases those who are bound, and who puts it in our minds to untangle the knots of their unnatural teachings, if possible, transform these men and make them believers instead of mere speakers, Christians instead of what they are now called. This we pray and beg for Christ's sake: be reconciled to God, and do not quench the Spirit; or rather, may Christ be reconciled to you, and may the Spirit enlighten you, even at this late hour. But if you are too attached to your quarreling, we at least will hold fast to the Trinity, and through the Trinity may we be saved, remaining pure and blameless until the fuller revelation of what we long for, in Him, Christ our Lord, to whom be the glory forever. Amen.

XXI. This, then, is our reply to those who would puzzle us; not given willingly indeed (for light talk and contradictions of words are not agreeable to the faithful, and one Adversary is enough for us), but of necessity, for the sake of our assailants (for medicines exist because of diseases), that they may be led to see that they are not all-wise nor invincible in those superfluous arguments which make void the Gospel. For when we leave off believing, and protect ourselves by mere strength of argument, and destroy the claim which the Spirit has upon our faith by questionings, and then our argument is not strong enough for the importance of the subject (and this must necessarily be the case, since it is put in motion by an organ of so little power as is our mind), what is the result? The weakness of the argument appears to belong to the mystery, and thus elegance of language makes void the Cross, as Paul also thought. 1 Corinthians 1:17 For faith is that which completes our argument. But may He who proclaims unions and looses those that are bound, and who puts into our minds to solve the knots of their unnatural dogmas, if it may be, change these men and make them faithful instead of rhetoricians, Christians instead of that which they now are called. This indeed we entreat and beg for Christ's sake. Be reconciled to God, 2 Corinthians 5:20 and quench not the Spirit; 1 Thessalonians 5:19 or rather, may Christ be reconciled to you, and may the Spirit enlighten you, though so late. But if you are too fond of your quarrel, we at any rate will hold fast to the Trinity, and by the Trinity may we be saved, remaining pure and without offense, until the more perfect showing forth of that which we desire, in Him, Christ our Lord, to Whom be the glory forever. Amen.

The Second Theological Oration.

The Second Theological Oration.

In the previous discourse, we clearly established what kind of person the theologian ought to be, what subjects he may explore philosophically, when he should do so, and to what extent. We saw that he should be as pure as possible, so that light may grasp light, and that he should associate with serious people, so that his words do not become fruitless by falling on barren soil. We also saw that the right time for theology is when we have inner calm from the turmoil of external things, so we do not lose our composure like madmen, and that we may go only as far as we ourselves have progressed or are progressing. Since this is the case, and we have plowed up for ourselves the unworked ground of divinity, so as not to sow among thorns, and have smoothed the surface of the soil, being shaped and shaping others through Holy Scripture—let us now take up theological questions, placing at the beginning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, about whom we are to speak. May the Father be well pleased, the Son help us, and the Holy Spirit inspire us—or rather, may one illumination come to us from the one God, one in diversity, diverse in unity, which is a marvel.

I. In the former Discourse we laid down clearly with respect to the Theologian, both what sort of character he ought to bear, and on what kind of subject he may philosophize, and when, and to what extent. We saw that he ought to be, as far as may be, pure, in order that light may be apprehended by light; and that he ought to consort with serious men, in order that his word be not fruitless through falling on an unfruitful soil; and that the suitable season is when we have a calm within from the whirl of outward things; so as not like madmen to lose our breath; and that the extent to which we may go is that to which we have ourselves advanced, or to which we are advancing. Since then these things are so, and we have broken up for ourselves the fallows of Divinity Jeremiah 4:3, so as not to sow upon thorns, Matthew 13:7 and have made plain the face of the ground, Isaiah 28:25 being moulded and moulding others by Holy Scripture…let us now enter upon Theological questions, setting at the head thereof the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, of Whom we are to treat; that the Father may be well pleased, and the Son may help us, and the Holy Ghost may inspire us; or rather that one illumination may come upon us from the One God, One in diversity, diverse in Unity, wherein is a marvel.

When I eagerly climb the mountain, or to put it more truthfully, when I both eagerly desire and at the same time fear (the one because of my hope and the other because of my weakness) to enter the Cloud and speak with God, as God commands—if anyone is an Aaron, let him come up with me and stand nearby, ready, if necessary, to remain outside the Cloud. But if anyone is a Nadab or an Abihu, or belongs to the order of the Elders, let him go up, but let him stand at a distance, according to the degree of his purification. But if anyone belongs to the multitude, who are unworthy of this height of contemplation, if he is completely impure let him not approach at all, for it would be dangerous to him. But if he is at least temporarily purified, let him remain below and listen to the voice alone, and the trumpet, the bare words of piety, and let him see the mountain smoking and flashing with lightning, something both terrifying and marvelous to those who cannot ascend. But if anyone is an evil and savage beast, completely incapable of grasping the subject matter of contemplation and theology, let him not harmfully and maliciously lurk in his den among the woods, waiting to seize some dogma or saying by a sudden attack and to tear sound doctrine to pieces by his misrepresentations. Instead, let him stand even farther off and withdraw from the mountain, or he will be stoned and crushed, and will die miserably in his wickedness. For to those who are like wild beasts, true and sound teachings are like stones. If he is a leopard, let him die with his spots. If he is a ravening and roaring lion, seeking what he may devour of our souls or our words, or a wild boar trampling underfoot the precious and translucent pearls of truth, or an Arabian and alien wolf, or one even sharper than these in argumentative tricks, or a fox—that is, a treacherous and faithless soul, changing its form according to circumstances or necessities, feeding on dead or rotting bodies, or on small vineyards when the large ones have escaped them—or any other meat-eating beast rejected by the Law as unclean for food or enjoyment, our discourse must withdraw from such people and be engraved on solid tablets of stone, and on both sides, because the Law is partly visible and partly hidden. One part belongs to the masses who remain below, the other to the few who press upward to the mountain.

II. Now when I go up eagerly into the Mount Exodus 24:1 — or, to use a truer expression, when I both eagerly long, and at the same time am afraid (the one through my hope and the other through my weakness) to enter within the Cloud, and hold converse with God, for so God commands; if any be an Aaron, let him go up with me, and let him stand near, being ready, if it must be so, to remain outside the Cloud. But if any be a Nadad or an Abihu, or of the Order of the Elders, let him go up indeed, but let him stand afar off, according to the value of his purification. But if any be of the multitude, who are unworthy of this height of contemplation, if he be altogether impure let him not approach at all, for it would be dangerous to him; but if he be at least temporarily purified, let him remain below and listen to the Voice alone, and the trumpet, the bare words of piety, and let him see the Mountain smoking and lightening, a terror at once and a marvel to those who cannot get up. But if any is an evil and savage beast, and altogether incapable of taking in the subject matter of Contemplation and Theology, let him not hurtfully and malignantly lurk in his den among the woods, to catch hold of some dogma or saying by a sudden spring, and to tear sound doctrine to pieces by his misrepresentations, but let him stand yet afar off and withdraw from the Mount, or he shall be stoned and crushed, and shall perish miserably in his wickedness. For to those who are like wild beasts true and sound discourses are stones. If he be a leopard let him die with his spots. Jeremiah 13:23 If a ravening and roaring lion, seeking what he may devour 1 Peter 5:8 of our souls or of our words; or a wild boar, trampling under foot the precious and translucent pearls of the Truth; Matthew 7:6 or an Arabian and alien wolf, or one keener even than these in tricks of argument; or a fox, that is a treacherous and faithless soul, changing its shape according to circumstances or necessities, feeding on dead or putrid bodies, or on little vineyards when the large ones have escaped them; or any other carnivorous beast, rejected by the Law as unclean for food or enjoyment; our discourse must withdraw from such and be engraved on solid tables of stone, and that on both sides because the Law is partly visible, and partly hidden; the one part belonging to the mass who remain below, the other to the few who press upward into the Mount.

What is happening to me, friends, fellow initiates, and fellow lovers of the truth? I was running to take hold of God, and so I went up into the mountain and drew aside the curtain of the cloud, and I entered away from matter and material things. As far as I could, I withdrew within myself. And then when I looked up, I barely saw the back parts of God, although I was sheltered by the Rock, the Word that was made flesh for us. And when I looked a little closer, I saw not the first and unmixed nature known to itself—I mean the Trinity—not that which abides within the first veil and is hidden by the cherubim, but only that nature which at last even reaches to us. And that is, as far as I can learn, the majesty, or as holy David calls it, the glory that is manifested among the creatures which it has produced and governs. For these are the back parts of God, which he leaves behind him as tokens of himself, like the shadows and reflections of the sun in the water, which show the sun to our weak eyes because we cannot look at the sun itself, for by his unmixed light he is too strong for our power of perception. In this way, then, you shall speak of God, even if you were a Moses and a god to Pharaoh, even if you were caught up like Paul to the third heaven and had heard unspeakable words, even if you were raised above them both and exalted to angelic or archangelic place and dignity. For though a thing be entirely heavenly, or above heaven, and far higher in nature and nearer to God than we are, yet it is farther distant from God and from the complete comprehension of his nature than it is lifted above our complex and lowly and earthward-sinking composition.

III. What is this that has happened to me, O friends, and initiates, and fellow-lovers of the truth? I was running to lay hold on God, and thus I went up into the Mount, and drew aside the curtain of the Cloud, and entered away from matter and material things, and as far as I could I withdrew within myself. And then when I looked up, I scarce saw the back parts of God; Exodus 33:23 although I was sheltered by the Rock, the Word that was made flesh for us. And when I looked a little closer, I saw, not the First and unmingled Nature, known to Itself — to the Trinity, I mean; not That which abides within the first veil, and is hidden by the Cherubim; but only that Nature, which at last even reaches to us. And that is, as far as I can learn, the Majesty, or as holy David calls it, the Glory which is manifested among the creatures, which It has produced and governs. For these are the Back Parts of God, which He leaves behind Him, as tokens of Himself like the shadows and reflection of the sun in the water, which show the sun to our weak eyes, because we cannot look at the sun himself, for by his unmixed light he is too strong for our power of perception. In this way then shall you discourse of God; even were thou a Moses and a god to Pharaoh; Exodus 4:2 even were thou caught up like Paul to the Third Heaven, 2 Corinthians 12:2 and had heard unspeakable words; even were thou raised above them both, and exalted to Angelic or Archangelic place and dignity. For though a thing be all heavenly, or above heaven, and far higher in nature and nearer to God than we, yet it is farther distant from God, and from the complete comprehension of His Nature, than it is lifted above our complex and lowly and earthward sinking composition.

We must therefore start over like this. It is difficult to conceive God, but to define Him in words is impossible, as one of the Greek teachers of theology taught—not unskilfully, it seems to me. His intention was that he might be thought to have grasped God by saying it is a hard thing to do, and yet escape being convicted of ignorance because it is impossible to put that grasp into words. But in my opinion it is impossible to express Him, and even more impossible to conceive Him. For what can be conceived can perhaps be made clear through language—if not very well, at least imperfectly—to anyone who is not completely deaf or slow to understand. But to comprehend the whole of so great a subject as this is quite impossible and impracticable, not only for the utterly careless and ignorant, but even for those who are highly exalted, who love God, and likewise for every created nature. The reason is that the darkness of this world and the thick covering of the flesh are obstacles to the full understanding of the truth. I do not know whether it is the same with the higher natures and purer intelligences, which because of their nearness to God and because they are illumined with all His light may possibly see—if not the whole, at least more perfectly and distinctly than we do. Some perhaps see more, some less than others, in proportion to their rank.

IV. Therefore we must begin again thus. It is difficult to conceive God but to define Him in words is an impossibility, as one of the Greek teachers of Divinity taught, not unskilfully, as it appears to me; with the intention that he might be thought to have apprehended Him; in that he says it is a hard thing to do; and yet may escape being convicted of ignorance because of the impossibility of giving expression to the apprehension. But in my opinion it is impossible to express Him, and yet more impossible to conceive Him. For that which may be conceived may perhaps be made clear by language, if not fairly well, at any rate imperfectly, to any one who is not quite deprived of his hearing, or slothful of understanding. But to comprehend the whole of so great a Subject as this is quite impossible and impracticable, not merely to the utterly careless and ignorant, but even to those who are highly exalted, and who love God, and in like manner to every created nature; seeing that the darkness of this world and the thick covering of the flesh is an obstacle to the full understanding of the truth. I do not know whether it is the same with the higher natures and purer Intelligences which because of their nearness to God, and because they are illumined with all His Light, may possibly see, if not the whole, at any rate more perfectly and distinctly than we do; some perhaps more, some less than others, in proportion to their rank.

V. But enough has been said on this point. As for what concerns us, it is not only the Peace of God which passes all understanding and knowledge, nor only the things which God has stored up in promise for the righteous—which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor mind conceived except to a very small degree—nor the accurate knowledge of Creation. For even concerning this, I want you to know that you have only a shadow when you hear the words, "I will consider the heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, and the settled order in them"—not as if he were considering them in the present, but as he is destined to do in the future. But far beyond these is that nature which is above them and from which they spring—the Incomprehensible and Illimitable. I do not mean incomprehensible and illimitable as to the fact of His being, but as to Its nature. For our preaching is not empty, nor is our faith vain, nor is this the doctrine we proclaim. We would not have you take our candid statement as a starting point either for a quibbling denial of God or for arrogance on account of our confession of ignorance. For it is one thing to be persuaded of the existence of a thing, and quite another to know what it is.

V. But enough has been said on this point. As to what concerns us, it is not only the Peace of God Philippians 4:7 which passes all understanding and knowledge, nor only the things which God has stored up in promise for the righteous, which eye has not seen, nor ear heard, nor mind conceived except in a very small degree, nor the accurate knowledge of the Creation. For even of this I would have you know that you have only a shadow when you hear the words, I will consider the heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, and the settled order therein; not as if he were considering them now, but as destined to do so hereafter. But far before them is That nature Which is above them, and out of which they spring, the Incomprehensible and Illimitable — not, I mean, as to the fact of His being, but as to Its nature. For our preaching is not empty, nor our Faith vain, 1 Corinthians 15:19 nor is this the doctrine we proclaim; for we would not have you take our candid statement as a starting point for a quibbling denial of God, or of arrogance on account of our confession of ignorance. For it is one thing to be persuaded of the existence of a thing, and quite another to know what it is.

Our own eyes and the Law of Nature teach us that God exists and that He is the Efficient and Maintaining Cause of all things. Our eyes teach us this because they observe visible objects and see them in beautiful stability and progress, moving immovably and revolving—if I may put it that way. Natural Law teaches us because through these visible things and their order, it reasons backward to their Author. For how could this universe have come into being or been assembled unless God had called it into existence and held it together? Everyone who sees a beautifully crafted lute and considers the skill with which it has been fitted together and arranged, or who hears its melody, would think of no one but the lute maker or the lute player, and would turn to him in mind, even if he did not know him by sight. In the same way, That which made and moves and preserves all created things is manifested to us, even though He is not comprehended by the mind. Anyone who will not willingly go at least this far in following natural proofs is very lacking in sense. But even this, which we have imagined or formed, or which reason has sketched for us, does not prove the existence of a God. And even if someone has grasped this to some extent, how is God's Being to be demonstrated? Who ever reached this height of wisdom? Who was ever deemed worthy of so great a gift? Who has opened the mouth of his mind and drawn in the Spirit, so as by Him that searches all things, even the deep things of God, to take in God, and no longer to need progress, since he already possesses the Ultimate Object of desire, and That toward which all the social life and all the intelligence of the best men press forward?

VI. Now our very eyes and the Law of Nature teach us that God exists and that He is the Efficient and Maintaining Cause of all things: our eyes, because they fall on visible objects, and see them in beautiful stability and progress, immovably moving and revolving if I may so say; natural Law, because through these visible things and their order, it reasons back to their Author. For how could this Universe have come into being or been put together, unless God had called it into existence, and held it together? For every one who sees a beautifully made lute, and considers the skill with which it has been fitted together and arranged, or who hears its melody, would think of none but the lutemaker, or the luteplayer, and would recur to him in mind, though he might not know him by sight. And thus to us also is manifested That which made and moves and preserves all created things, even though He be not comprehended by the mind. And very wanting in sense is he who will not willingly go thus far in following natural proofs; but not even this which we have fancied or formed, or which reason has sketched for us, proves the existence of a God. But if any one has got even to some extent a comprehension of this, how is God's Being to be demonstrated? Who ever reached this extremity of wisdom? Who was ever deemed worthy of so great a gift? Who has opened the mouth of his mind and drawn in the Spirit, so as by Him that searches all things, yea the deep thing of God, 1 Corinthians 2:10 to take in God, and no longer to need progress, since he already possesses the Extreme Object of desire, and That to which all the social life and all the intelligence of the best men press forward?

What will you conceive God to be if you rely on all the approximations of reason? Or where will reason carry you, you who claim to be so philosophical and such excellent theologians, who boast of your familiarity with the Unlimited? Is He a body? Then how is He infinite and limitless, and formless, and intangible, and invisible? Are these the attributes of a body? What arrogance, for this is not the nature of a body! Or will you say that He has a body but does not have these attributes? What foolishness—that God should possess nothing more than we do. For how is He an object of worship if He is limited by boundaries? Or how shall He escape being made of elements and therefore liable to be broken down into them again, or even completely dissolved? For every compound is a starting point of conflict, and conflict leads to separation, and separation to dissolution. But dissolution is completely foreign to God and to the First Nature. Therefore there can be no separation, so that there may be no dissolution, and no conflict so that there may be no separation, and no composition so that there may be no conflict. Thus also there must be no body, so that there may be no composition, and so the argument is established by working backward from last to first.

VII. For what will you conceive the Deity to be, if you rely upon all the approximations of reason? Or to what will reason carry you, O most philosophic of men and best of Theologians, who boast of your familiarity with the Unlimited? Is He a body? How then is He the Infinite and Limitless, and formless, and intangible, and invisible? Or are these attributes of a body? What arrogance for such is not the nature of a body! Or will you say that He has a body, but not these attributes? O stupidity, that a Deity should possess nothing more than we do. For how is He an object of worship if He be circumscribed? Or how shall He escape being made of elements, and therefore subject to be resolved into them again, or even altogether dissolved? For every compound is a starting point of strife, and strife of separation, and separation of dissolution. But dissolution is altogether foreign to God and to the First Nature. Therefore there can be no separation, that there may be no dissolution, and no strife that there may be no separation, and no composition that there may be no strife. Thus also there must be no body, that there may be no composition, and so the argument is established by going back from last to first.

If we say that God pervades all things and fills all, as Scripture says—"Do not I fill heaven and earth?" says the Lord (Jeremiah 23:24), and "The Spirit of the Lord fills the world" (Wisdom 1:7)—how can we maintain this if God is partly contained and partly contains? Either He will occupy an empty universe, and so everything will have disappeared, with the result that we will have insulted God by making Him a body and by stripping Him of everything He has made; or else He will be a body contained within other bodies, which is impossible; or He will be wrapped up in them or mixed with them, the way liquids blend together and one divides and is divided by another—a view more absurd and foolish than even the atoms of Epicurus. So this argument about the body will collapse and have no substance or solid foundation at all. But if we say that He is immaterial—for instance, that fifth element some people have imagined—and that He is carried around in circular movement, let us assume He is immaterial and that He is the fifth element. And if they like, let Him also be bodiless according to the independent direction and arrangement of their argument, for I will not disagree with them on this point right now. But in what way, then, will He be one of those things that are in movement and agitation—to say nothing of the insult of making the Creator subject to the same movement as the creatures, and of making Him who carries all things (if they will even grant that much) identical with those He carries? Again, what is the force that moves your fifth element, and what moves all things, and what moves that, and what is the force that moves that? And so on indefinitely. And how can He avoid being entirely contained in space if He is subject to motion? But if they say He is something other than this fifth element—suppose it is an angelic nature they attribute to Him—how will they demonstrate that angels are corporeal, or what kind of bodies they have? And in that case, how could God, whom the angels serve, be superior to the angels? And if He is above them, there is again introduced an irrational swarm of bodies and a depth of nonsense that has no possible basis to stand on.

VIII. And how shall we preserve the truth that God pervades all things and fills all, as it is written Do not I fill heaven and earth? Says the Lord, Jeremiah 23:24 and The Spirit of the Lord fills the world, Wisdom 1:7 if God partly contains and partly is contained? For either He will occupy an empty Universe, and so all things will have vanished for us, with this result, that we shall have insulted God by making Him a body, and by robbing Him of all things which He has made; or else He will be a body contained in other bodies, which is impossible; or He will be enfolded in them, or contrasted with them, as liquids are mixed, and one divides and is divided by another — a view which is more absurd and anile than even the atoms of Epicurus and so this argument concerning the body will fall through, and have no body and no solid basis at all. But if we are to assert that He is immaterial (as for example that Fifth Element which some have imagined), and that He is carried round in the circular movement…let us assume that He is immaterial, and that He is the Fifth Element; and, if they please, let Him be also bodiless in accordance with the independent drift and arrangement of their argument; for I will not at present differ with them on this point; in what respect then will He be one of those things which are in movement and agitation, to say nothing of the insult involved in making the Creator subject to the same movement as the creatures, and Him That carries all (if they will allow even this) one with those whom He carries. Again, what is the force that moves your Fifth Element, and what is it that moves all things, and what moves that, and what is the force that moves that? And so on ad infinitum. And how can He help being altogether contained in space if He be subject to motion? But if they assert that He is something other than this Fifth Element; suppose it is an angelic nature that they attribute to Him, how will they show that Angels are corporeal, or what sort of bodies they have? And how far in that case could God, to Whom the Angels minister, be superior to the Angels? And if He is above them, there is again brought in an irrational swarm of bodies, and a depth of nonsense, that has no possible basis to stand upon.

And so we see that God is not a body. No inspired teacher has ever claimed or accepted such an idea, nor has the verdict of our own judgment allowed it. Nothing remains, then, but to think of Him as incorporeal. But this term "incorporeal," even if we accept it, does not yet reveal to us—or contain within itself—His essence, any more than "unbegotten," "without beginning," "unchanging," "incorruptible," or any other description used concerning God or applied to Him. For what effect does it have on His being or ousia (substance) to say that He has no beginning and cannot be changed or limited? No, the entire question of His being is still left for further consideration and explanation by whoever truly has the mind of God and is advanced in contemplation. For just as saying "it is a body" or "it was begotten" is not enough to present clearly to the mind the various objects to which these descriptions apply, but you must also identify the subject you are describing if you want to present the object of your thought clearly and fully (since any of these descriptions—corporeal, begotten, mortal—can be used of a man, or a cow, or a horse), just so the person eagerly pursuing the physis (nature) of the Self-existent will not stop at saying what He is not, but must go further beyond what He is not and say what He is. This is because it is easier to grasp some single point than to go on denying point after point in endless detail, in order—both by eliminating negatives and affirming positives—to arrive at an understanding of this subject.

IX. And thus we see that God is not a body. For no inspired teacher has yet asserted or admitted such a notion, nor has the sentence of our own Court allowed it. Nothing then remains but to conceive of Him as incorporeal. But this term Incorporeal, though granted, does not yet set before us — or contain within itself His Essence, any more than Unbegotten, or Unoriginate, or Unchanging, or Incorruptible, or any other predicate which is used concerning God or in reference to Him. For what effect is produced upon His Being or Substance by His having no beginning, and being incapable of change or limitation? Nay, the whole question of His Being is still left for the further consideration and exposition of him who truly has the mind of God and is advanced in contemplation. For just as to say It is a body, or It was begotten, is not sufficient to present clearly to the mind the various objects of which these predicates are used, but you must also express the subject of which you use them, if you would present the object of your thought clearly and adequately (for every one of these predicates, corporeal, begotten, mortal, may be used of a man, or a cow, or a horse). Just so he who is eagerly pursuing the nature of the Self-existent will not stop at saying what He is not, but must go on beyond what He is not, and say what He is; inasmuch as it is easier to take in some single point than to go on disowning point after point in endless detail, in order, both by the elimination of negatives and the assertion of positives to arrive at a comprehension of this subject.

A person who states what God is not without going on to say what He is acts much like someone who, when asked what twice five makes, answers, "Not two, not three, not four, not five, not twenty, not thirty, and in fact not any number below ten, nor any multiple of ten," but does not answer "ten" or settle the questioner's mind on the solid ground of the answer. For it is much easier and more concise to show what something is not based on what it is, than to demonstrate what it is by stripping away what it is not. This is surely evident to everyone.

But a man who states what God is not without going on to say what He is, acts much in the same way as one would who when asked how many twice five make, should answer, Not two, nor three, nor four, nor five, nor twenty, nor thirty, nor in short any number below ten, nor any multiple of ten; but would not answer ten, nor settle the mind of his questioner upon the firm ground of the answer. For it is much easier, and more concise to show what a thing is not from what it is, than to demonstrate what it is by stripping it of what it is not. And this surely is evident to every one.

Since we have established that God is incorporeal, let us continue our examination a little further. Is He nowhere or somewhere? If He is nowhere, then someone with a very inquiring mind might ask: How then can He even exist? For if what does not exist is nowhere, then what is nowhere is also perhaps non-existent. But if He is somewhere, He must be either in the universe or above the universe. If He is in the universe, then He must be either in some part of it or in the whole of it. If in some part, then He will be limited by that part which is less than Himself; but if everywhere, then by something larger and greater—I mean the whole universe, which contains the particular parts; this would mean the universe is contained by the universe, and no place would be free from limitation. This is what follows if He is contained in the universe. Besides, where was He before the universe was created? This is no small difficulty. But if He is above the universe, is there nothing to distinguish this from the universe, and where is this "above" located? How could this transcendence and what is transcended be distinguished in thought if there is no boundary to divide and define them? Is it not necessary that there be something in between to mark off the universe from what is above the universe? And what could this be except place, which we have already rejected? For I have not yet mentioned this point: that God would be altogether limited if He were even comprehensible in thought, since comprehension is one form of limitation.

X. Now since we have ascertained that God is incorporeal, let us proceed a little further with our examination. Is He Nowhere or Somewhere. For if He is Nowhere, then some person of a very inquiring turn of mind might ask, How is it then that He can even exist? For if the non-existent is nowhere, then that which is nowhere is also perhaps non-existent. But if He is Somewhere, He must be either in the Universe, or above the Universe. And if He is in the Universe, then He must be either in some part or in the whole. If in some part, then He will be circumscribed by that part which is less than Himself; but if everywhere, then by one which is further and greater — I mean the Universal, which contains the Particular; if the Universe is to be contained by the Universe, and no place is to be free from circumscription. This follows if He is contained in the Universe. And besides, where was He before the Universe was created, for this is a point of no little difficulty. But if He is above the Universe, is there nothing to distinguish this from the Universe, and where is this above situated? And how could this Transcendence and that which is transcended be distinguished in thought, if there is not a limit to divide and define them? Is it not necessary that there shall be some mean to mark off the Universe from that which is above the Universe? And what could this be but Place, which we have already rejected? For I have not yet brought forward the point that God would be altogether circumscript, if He were even comprehensible in thought: for comprehension is one form of circumscription.

XI. Now, why have I gone into all this—perhaps in too much detail for most people to listen to, and in keeping with the current style of discourse, which rejects noble simplicity and has introduced a twisted and convoluted manner of speaking? So that the tree may be known by its fruits—that is, so that the darkness at work in such teaching may be recognized by the obscurity of its arguments. For my purpose in doing this was not to gain credit for myself through astonishing statements or excessive wisdom by tying knots and solving difficulties (that was the great miraculous gift of Daniel), but to make clear the point my argument has aimed at from the beginning. And what was this? That the Divine Nature cannot be grasped by human reason, and that we cannot even represent to ourselves all its greatness. And this is not out of envy, for envy is far from the Divine Nature, which is without passion and only good and Lord of all—especially envy of what is the most honorable of all His creatures. For what does the Word prefer above rational and speaking creatures? Why, their very existence is proof of His supreme goodness. Nor is this incomprehensibility for the sake of His own glory and honor, Who is full, as if His possession of glory and majesty depended upon the impossibility of approaching Him. For it is utterly sophistical and foreign to the character—I will not say of God, but of any moderately good person who has any right ideas about himself—to seek his own supremacy by placing a hindrance in the way of another.

XI. Now, why have I gone into all this, perhaps too minutely for most people to listen to, and in accordance with the present manner of discourse, which despises noble simplicity, and has introduced a crooked and intricate style? That the tree may be known by its fruits; Luke 6:44 I mean, that the darkness which is at work in such teaching may be known by the obscurity of the arguments. For my purpose in doing so was, not to get credit for myself for astonishing utterances, or excessive wisdom, through tying knots and solving difficulties (this was the great miraculous gift of Daniel), but to make clear the point at which my argument has aimed from the first. And what was this? That the Divine Nature cannot be apprehended by human reason, and that we cannot even represent to ourselves all its greatness. And this not out of envy, for envy is far from the Divine Nature, which is passionless, and only good and Lord of all; especially envy of that which is the most honourable of all His creatures. For what does the Word prefer to the rational and speaking creatures? Why, even their very existence is a proof of His supreme goodness. Nor yet is this incomprehensibility for the sake of His own glory and honour, Who is full, Isaiah 1:11 as if His possession of His glory and majesty depended upon the impossibility of approaching Him. For it is utterly sophistical and foreign to the character, I will not say of God, but of any moderately good man, who has any right ideas about himself, to seek his own supremacy by throwing a hindrance in the way of another.

XII. But whether there are also other reasons for this, let those see who are closer to God and who are eyewitnesses and observers of His unsearchable judgments—if there are any who are so outstanding in virtue and who walk in the paths of the Infinite, as the saying goes. As far as we have understood, however, measuring with our small measure things that are hard to understand, perhaps one reason is to prevent us from too easily throwing away what we possess because we gained it so easily. For people hold tightly to what they acquire through effort, but what they acquire easily they quickly discard, because it can be easily regained. And so it becomes a blessing, at least to all sensible people, that this blessing is not too easily obtained. Or perhaps it is so that we may not share the fate of Lucifer, who fell—and as a result of receiving the full light, become arrogant against the Lord Almighty, and suffer a fall (the most pitiable of all things) from the height we had reached. Or perhaps it may be to give a greater reward in the life to come for their labor and glorious life to those who have been purified here and have exercised long patience regarding what they desired.

XII. But whether there be other causes for it also, let them see who are nearer God, and are eye witnesses and spectators of His unsearchable judgments; Romans 11:33 if there are any who are so eminent in virtue, and who walk in the paths of the Infinite, as the saying is. As far, however, as we have attained, who measure with our little measure things hard to be understood, perhaps one reason is to prevent us from too readily throwing away the possession because it was so easily come by. For people cling tightly to that which they acquire with labour; but that which they acquire easily they quickly throw away, because it can be easily recovered. And so it is turned into a blessing, at least to all men who are sensible, that this blessing is not too easy. Or perhaps it is in order that we may not share the fate of Lucifer, who fell, and in consequence of receiving the full light make our necks stiff against the Lord Almighty, and suffer a fall, of all things most pitiable, from the height we had attained. Or perhaps it may be to give a greater reward hereafter for their labour and glorious life to those who have here been purified, and have exercised long patience in respect of that which they desired.

Therefore this darkness of the body has been placed between us and God, like the cloud of old between the Egyptians and the Hebrews, and this is perhaps what is meant by "He made darkness His secret place"—namely our dullness, through which few can see even a little. But let those whose business it is discuss this point, and let them ascend as far as possible in their examination. To us who are, as Jeremiah says, prisoners of the earth and covered with the denseness of our fleshly nature, this much at least is known: just as it is impossible for a person to step over his own shadow, no matter how fast he moves (for the shadow will always move forward as quickly as it is being overtaken), or as it is impossible for the eye to approach visible objects without the intervening air and light, or for a fish to glide about outside the waters, so it is completely impractical for those who are in the body to engage with objects of pure thought apart altogether from bodily objects. For something from our own surroundings is always creeping in, even when the mind has most fully detached itself from the visible and collected itself, and is attempting to apply itself to those invisible things which are akin to itself.

Therefore this darkness of the body has been placed between us and God, like the cloud of old between the Egyptians and the Hebrews; Exodus 14:20 and this is perhaps what is meant by He made darkness His secret place, namely our dulness, through which few can see even a little. But as to this point, let those discuss it whose business it is; and let them ascend as far as possible in the examination. To us who are (as Jeremiah says), prisoners of the earth, Lamentations 3:34 and covered with the denseness of carnal nature, this at all events is known, that as it is impossible for a man to step over his own shadow, however fast he may move (for the shadow will always move on as fast as it is being overtaken) or, as it is impossible for the eye to draw near to visible objects apart from the intervening air and light, or for a fish to glide about outside of the waters; so it is quite impracticable for those who are in the body to be conversant with objects of pure thought apart altogether from bodily objects. For something in our own environment is ever creeping in, even when the mind has most fully detached itself from the visible, and collected itself, and is attempting to apply itself to those invisible things which are akin to itself.

This can be made clear to you as follows: Are not Spirit, Fire, Light, Love, Wisdom, Righteousness, Mind, and Reason—and similar terms—names for the First Nature? What then? Can you think of Spirit apart from movement and spreading outward? Or of Fire without something to burn, without rising upward, and without its characteristic color and shape? Or of Light unmixed with air and separated from what is, so to speak, its father and source? And how do you think of a mind? Is it not something that exists in a person distinct from itself, and are not its activities thoughts, whether silent or spoken? And Reason—what else can you consider it to be except something either silent within ourselves or poured out (for I hesitate to say "loosed")? And if you think of Wisdom, what is it but the disposition of mind that you recognize as such, concerned with contemplation of either divine or human things? And Justice and Love, are they not commendable dispositions, one opposed to injustice and the other to hatred, at times intensifying themselves and at other times relaxing, now taking hold of us and now leaving us alone—in short, making us what we are and changing us as colors change bodies? Or should we instead set aside all these things and look at the Deity absolutely, as best we can, gathering a fragmentary perception of it from its images? What then is this subtle thing that belongs to these things yet is not these things? Or how can that Unity, which is by nature uncomposite and incomparable, still be all of these and each one of them perfectly? Thus our mind grows faint trying to transcend bodily things and associate with the Incorporeal, stripped of all covering of bodily concepts, as long as it must look with its inherent weakness at things beyond its strength. For every rational nature longs for God and for the First Cause but is unable to grasp him for the reasons I have mentioned. Growing faint with desire and, as it were, restless and impatient with this inability, it attempts a second course: either to look at visible things and make a god out of some of them (a poor strategy, for in what respect and to what degree can what is seen be higher and more godlike than what sees, so that the latter should worship the former?), or else to reach what is above sight through the beauty and order of visible things—but not to suffer the loss of God through the splendor of visible things.

XIII. This will be made clear to you as follows:– Are not Spirit, and Fire, and Light, Love, and Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Mind and Reason, and the like, the names of the First Nature? What then? Can you conceive of Spirit apart from motion and diffusion; or of Fire without its fuel and its upward motion, and its proper color and form? Or of Light unmingled with air, and loosed from that which is as it were its father and source? And how do you conceive of a mind? Is it not that which is inherent in some person not itself, and are not its movements thoughts, silent or uttered? And Reason…what else can you think it than that which is either silent within ourselves, or else outpoured (for I shrink from saying loosed)? And if you conceive of Wisdom, what is it but the habit of mind which you know as such, and which is concerned with contemplations either divine or human? And Justice and Love, are they not praiseworthy dispositions, the one opposed to injustice, the other to hate, and at one time intensifying themselves, at another relaxed, now taking possession of us, now leaving us alone, and in a word, making us what we are, and changing us as colors do bodies? Or are we rather to leave all these things, and to look at the Deity absolutely, as best we can, collecting a fragmentary perception of It from Its images? What then is this subtle thing, which is of these, and yet is not these, or how can that Unity which is in its Nature uncomposite and incomparable, still be all of these, and each one of them perfectly? Thus our mind faints to transcend corporeal things, and to consort with the Incorporeal, stripped of all clothing of corporeal ideas, as long as it has to look with its inherent weakness at things above its strength. For every rational nature longs for God and for the First Cause, but is unable to grasp Him, for the reasons I have mentioned. Faint therefore with the desire, and as it were restive and impatient of the disability, it tries a second course, either to look at visible things, and out of some of them to make a god…(a poor contrivance, for in what respect and to what extent can that which is seen be higher and more godlike than that which sees, that this should worship that?) or else through the beauty and order of visible things to attain to that which is above sight; but not to suffer the loss of God through the magnificence of visible things.

Because of this, some people have made a god of the sun, others of the moon, others of the host of stars, others of heaven itself with all its hosts, to which they attributed the guidance of the universe based on the quality or quantity of their movement. Still others worshipped the elements—earth, air, water, fire—because of their usefulness, since human life cannot possibly exist without them. Others have worshipped whatever visible objects they happened upon, setting up the most beautiful things they saw as their gods. And there are those who worship pictures and images, at first of their own ancestors—at least among the more affectionate and emotional people—and honor the departed with memorials. Later, even images of strangers were worshipped by people of a later generation separated from them by a long period of time. This came from ignorance of the First Nature and from following traditional honor as if it were lawful and necessary, for custom when confirmed by time was considered to be law. And I think that some who were flatterers of arbitrary power, who praised physical strength and admired beauty, eventually made a god out of the person they honored, perhaps seizing upon some legend to help with their deception.

XIV. From this cause some have made a god of the Sun, others of the Moon, others of the host of Stars, others of heaven itself with all its hosts, to which they have attributed the guiding of the Universe, according to the quality or quantity of their movement. Others again of the Elements, earth, air, water, fire, because of their useful nature, since without them human life cannot possibly exist. Others again have worshipped any chance visible objects, setting up the most beautiful of what they saw as their gods. And there are those who worship pictures and images, at first indeed of their own ancestors — at least, this is the case with the more affectionate and sensual — and honour the departed with memorials; and afterwards even those of strangers are worshipped by men of a later generation separated from them by a long interval; through ignorance of the First Nature, and following the traditional honour as lawful and necessary; for usage when confirmed by time was held to be Law. And I think that some who were courtiers of arbitrary power and extolled bodily strength and admired beauty, made a god in time out of him whom they honoured, perhaps getting hold of some fable to help on their imposture.

Those who were most driven by their passions actually made gods out of those passions, or honored them among their deities—anger and bloodthirstiness, lust and drunkenness, and every similar wickedness. This gave them a shameful and unjust excuse for their own sins. They left some of these gods on earth, buried others beneath the earth (the only remotely wise thing they did), and raised still others to heaven. What a ridiculous way to divide up an inheritance! Then they gave each of these concepts the name of some god or demon, based solely on the authority and personal judgment of their own error. They set up statues whose expense is a trap, and thought to honor them with blood and the smoke of sacrifices, and sometimes even with the most shameful actions—frenzies and murder. Such honors were fitting for such gods. People have even gone so far as to worship monsters, four-footed animals, and reptiles, including the most vile and absurd creatures, offering them the glory that belongs to God. It's hard to say whether the worshippers or the objects of their worship deserve more contempt. Probably the worshippers are far more contemptible, because though they have a rational nature and have received grace from God, they have elevated the worse above the better. This was the Evil One's trick—he misuses what is good for evil purposes, as he does in most of his wicked schemes. He seized upon their desire as it wandered in search of God, twisting that power toward himself and stealing their desire, leading them by the hand like a blind man asking for directions. Then he threw them down and scattered them in different directions, into one pit of death and destruction.

XV. And those of them who were most subject to passion deified their passions, or honoured them among their gods; Anger and Blood-thirstiness, Lust and Drunkenness, and every similar wickedness; and made out of this an ignoble and unjust excuse for their own sins. And some they left on earth, and some they hid beneath the earth (this being the only sign of wisdom about them), and some they raised to heaven. O ridiculous distribution of inheritance! Then they gave to each of these concepts the name of some god or demon, by the authority and private judgment of their error, and set up statues whose costliness is a snare, and thought to honour them with blood and the steam of sacrifices, and sometimes even by most shameful actions, frenzies and manslaughter. For such honours were the fitting due of such gods. And before now men have insulted themselves by worshipping monsters, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things, Romans 1:23 and of the very vilest and most absurd, and have made an offering to them of the glory of God; so that it is not easy to decide whether we ought most to despise the worshippers or the objects of their worship. Probably the worshippers are far the most contemptible, for though they are of a rational nature, and have received grace from God, they have set up the worse as the better. And this was the trick of the Evil One, who abused good to an evil purpose, as in most of his evil deeds. For he laid hold of their desire in its wandering in search of God, in order to distort to himself the power, and steal the desire, leading it by the hand, like a blind man asking a road; and he hurled down and scattered some in one direction and some in another, into one pit of death and destruction.

XVI. This was their way. But reason, receiving us in our longing for God and in our awareness that we cannot be without a leader and guide, causes us to turn to visible things and to encounter what has existed from the beginning, yet does not stop even there. For it would not be the mark of Wisdom to grant supreme authority to things which, as we observe, are of equal rank. By these things, then, reason leads us to what is above them and what gives them their being. For what is it that ordered the things in heaven and the things on earth, and those that pass through air, and those that live in water—or rather the things that came before these: heaven and earth, air and water? Who mixed them and who distributed them? What do they each have in common with the others, and what accounts for their mutual dependence and harmony? For I praise the man, though he was a pagan, who said: What set these in motion and drives their ceaseless and unhindered movement? Is it not the Artificer who made them, who implanted reason in them all, according to which the universe is moved and governed? Is it not He who made them and brought them into being? For we cannot attribute such power to chance. For suppose its existence is by chance—to what shall we attribute its order? And if you wish, we will grant you this: to what then shall we attribute its preservation and protection according to the conditions of its first creation? Do these belong to chance, or to something else? Surely not to chance. And what can this something else be but God? Thus reason that proceeds from God, that is implanted in all from the beginning and is the first law within us, and is bound up in all things, leads us up to God through visible things. Let us begin again and reason this out.

XVI. This was their course. But reason receiving us in our desire for God, and in our sense of the impossibility of being without a leader and guide, and then making us apply ourselves to things visible and meeting with the things which have been since the beginning, does not stay its course even here. For it was not the part of Wisdom to grant the sovereignty to things which are, as observation tells us, of equal rank. By these then it leads to that which is above these, and by which being is given to these. For what is it which ordered things in heaven and things in earth, and those which pass through air, and those which live in water; or rather the things which were before these, heaven and earth, air and water? Who mingled these, and who distributed them? What is it that each has in common with the other, and their mutual dependence and agreement? For I commend the man, though he was a heathen, who said, What gave movement to these, and drives their ceaseless and unhindered motion? Is it not the Artificer of them Who implanted reason in them all, in accordance with which the Universe is moved and controlled? Is it not He who made them and brought them into being? For we cannot attribute such a power to the Accidental. For, suppose that its existence is accidental, to what will you let us ascribe its order? And if you like we will grant you this: to what then will you ascribe its preservation and protection in accordance with the terms of its first creation. Do these belong to the Accidental, or to something else? Surely not to the Accidental. And what can this Something Else be but God? Thus reason that proceeds from God, that is implanted in all from the beginning and is the first law in us, and is bound up in all, leads us up to God through visible things. Let us begin again, and reason this out.

What God is in nature and essence, no one has ever discovered or can discover. Whether it will ever be discovered is a question that anyone who wishes may examine and decide. In my opinion, it will be discovered when that which is godlike and divine within us—I mean our mind and reason—has mingled with what is like it, and the image has ascended to the Archetype of which it now has desire. And this, I think, is the solution to that difficult problem about "we shall know even as we are known." But in our present life, all that comes to us is only a little outpouring, like a small ray from a great light. So if anyone has known God, or has received Scripture's testimony to his knowledge of God, we should understand that such a person possessed a degree of knowledge that made him appear more fully enlightened than another who did not enjoy the same degree of illumination. This relative superiority is spoken of as if it were absolute knowledge, not because it really is such, but by comparison with the lesser capacity of the other person.

XVII. What God is in nature and essence, no man ever yet has discovered or can discover. Whether it will ever be discovered is a question which he who will may examine and decide. In my opinion it will be discovered when that within us which is godlike and divine, I mean our mind and reason, shall have mingled with its Like, and the image shall have ascended to the Archetype, of which it has now the desire. And this I think is the solution of that vexed problem as to We shall know even as we are known. But in our present life all that comes to us is but a little effluence, and as it were a small effulgence from a great Light. So that if anyone has known God, or has had the testimony of Scripture to his knowledge of God, we are to understand such an one to have possessed a degree of knowledge which gave him the appearance of being more fully enlightened than another who did not enjoy the same degree of illumination; and this relative superiority is spoken of as if it were absolute knowledge, not because it is really such, but by comparison with the power of that other.

XVIII. Thus Enos hoped to call upon the Name of the Lord. Hope was what he is commended for, and not that he should know God, but that he should call upon him. And Enoch was translated, but it is not yet clear whether this was because he already comprehended the Divine Nature, or in order that he might comprehend it. And Noah's glory was that he was pleasing to God. He who was entrusted with saving the whole world from the waters, or rather the seeds of the world, escaped the Deluge in a small Ark. And Abraham, great Patriarch though he was, was justified by faith and offered a strange victim, the type of the Great Sacrifice. Yet he did not see God as God, but gave Him food as a man. He was approved because he worshipped as far as he comprehended. And Jacob dreamed of a lofty ladder and stair of Angels, and in a mystery anointed a pillar—perhaps to signify the Rock that was anointed for our sake—and gave to a place the name of The House of God in honor of Him whom he saw. And he wrestled with God in human form, whatever this wrestling of God with man may mean—possibly it refers to the comparison of man's virtue with God's. And he bore on his body the marks of the wrestling, setting forth the defeat of created nature. And as a reward for his reverence he received a change of his name, being named Israel instead of Jacob—that great and honorable name. Yet neither he nor anyone on his behalf, to this day, of all the Twelve Tribes who were his children, could boast that he comprehended the whole nature or the pure sight of God.

XVIII. Thus Enos hoped to call upon the Name of the Lord. Hope was that for which he is commended; and that, not that he should know God, but that he should call upon him. And Enoch was translated, but it is not yet clear whether it was because he already comprehended the Divine Nature, or in order that he might comprehend it. And Noah's Genesis 6:8 glory was that he was pleasing to God; he who was entrusted with the saving of the whole world from the waters, or rather of the Seeds of the world, escaped the Deluge in a small Ark. And Abraham, great Patriarch though he was, was justified by faith, and offered a strange victim, the type of the Great Sacrifice. Yet he saw not God as God, but gave Him food as a man. He was approved because he worshipped as far as he comprehended. Genesis 32:28 And Jacob dreamed of a lofty ladder and stair of Angels, and in a mystery anointed a pillar — perhaps to signify the Rock that was anointed for our sake — and gave to a place the name of The House of God in honour of Him whom he saw; and wrestled with God in human form; whatever this wrestling of God with man may mean…possibly it refers to the comparison of man's virtue with God's; and he bore on his body the marks of the wrestling, setting forth the defeat of the created nature; and for a reward of his reverence he received a change of his name; being named, instead of Jacob, Israel — that great and honourable name. Yet neither he nor any one on his behalf, unto this day, of all the Twelve Tribes who were his children, could boast that he comprehended the whole nature or the pure sight of God.

For Elijah, it was neither the strong wind, nor the fire, nor the earthquake, as you learn from the story, but a gentle breeze that hinted at the presence of God—and not even this revealed His Nature. And who was this Elijah? The man whom a fiery chariot carried up to heaven, showing the superhuman excellence of the righteous man. And are you not amazed at Manoah the judge of old, and at Peter the disciple in later times? The first could not endure even the sight of one who bore a representation of God, saying, "We are doomed, my wife, we have seen God"—speaking as though even a vision of God could not be grasped by human beings, much less the Nature of God. The second could not endure the presence of Christ in his boat and therefore asked Him to leave, even though Peter was more eager than the others for knowledge of Christ, received a blessing for this, and was entrusted with the greatest gifts. What would you say about Isaiah or Ezekiel, who witnessed very great mysteries, and the other prophets? For one of them saw the Lord of Sabaoth sitting on the throne of glory, surrounded and praised and hidden by the six-winged Seraphim, and was himself purified by the burning coal and prepared for his prophetic office. And the other describes the cherubic chariot of God, and the throne upon them, and the firmament over it, and the One who appeared in the firmament, along with voices, powers, and deeds. Whether this was an appearance by day visible only to saints, or an infallible vision of the night, or an impression on the mind engaging with the future as if it were the present, or some other ineffable form of prophecy, I cannot say. The God of the prophets knows, and those who are thus inspired know. But neither these of whom I am speaking, nor any of their companions, ever stood before the council and ousia of God, as it is written, or saw or proclaimed the physis of God.

XIX. To Elias neither the strong wind, nor the fire, nor the earthquake, as you learn from the story, but a light breeze adumbrated the Presence of God, and not even this His Nature. And who was this Elias? The man whom a chariot of fire took up to heaven, signifying the superhuman excellency of the righteous man. And are you not amazed at Manoah the Judge of yore, and at Peter the disciple in later days; the one being unable to endure the sight even of one in whom was a representation of God; and saying, We are undone, O wife, we have seen God; Judges 13:22 speaking as though even a vision of God could not be grasped by human beings, let alone the Nature of God; and the other unable to endure the Presence of Christ in his boat and therefore bidding Him depart; Luke 5:8 and this though Peter was more zealous than the others for the knowledge of Christ, and received a blessing for this, Matthew 16:16-17 and was entrusted with the greatest gifts. What would you say of Isaiah or Ezekiel, who was an eyewitness of very great mysteries, and of the other Prophets; for one of these saw the Lord of Sabaoth sitting on the Throne of glory, and encircled and praised and hidden by the sixwinged Seraphim, and was himself purged by the live coal, and equipped for his prophetic office. And the other describes the Cherubic Chariot Ezekiel 1:4-28 of God, and the Throne upon them, and the Firmament over it, and Him that showed Himself in the Firmament, and Voices, and Forces, and Deeds. And whether this was an appearance by day, only visible to Saints, or an unerring vision of the night, or an impression on the mind holding converse with the future as if it were the present; or some other ineffable form of prophecy, I cannot say; the God of the Prophets knows, and they know who are thus inspired. But neither these of whom I am speaking, nor any of their fellows ever stood before the Council and Essence of God, as it is written, or saw, or proclaimed the Nature of God.

If Paul had been allowed to speak about what the Third Heaven contained and describe his own advance, ascension, or assumption there, perhaps we would know something more about God's Nature—if this was the mystery of the rapture. But since it was ineffable, we too will honor it by silence. We will hear Paul say this much about it: that we know in part and we prophesy in part. This and similar statements are the confessions of one who is not unskilled in knowledge, who promises to give proof of Christ speaking in him, the great teacher and champion of the truth. Therefore he regards all knowledge on earth only as through a glass darkly, as resting upon small images of the truth. Now, unless I seem to anyone too meticulous and overly anxious about examining this matter, perhaps it was about this very thing and nothing else that the Word Himself hinted when He said there were things that could not be borne now, but which would be borne and clarified later, and which John the Forerunner of the Word and great Voice of the Truth declared that even the whole world could not contain.

XX. If it had been permitted to Paul to utter what the Third Heaven 2 Corinthians 12:2 contained, and his own advance, or ascension, or assumption there, perhaps we should know something more about God's Nature, if this was the mystery of the rapture. But since it was ineffable, we too will honour it by silence. Thus much we will hear Paul say about it, that we know in part and we prophesy in part. 1 Corinthians 13:9 This and the like to this are the confessions of one who is not rude in knowledge, 2 Corinthians 11:6 who threatens to give proof of Christ speaking in him, the great doctor and champion of the truth. Wherefore he estimates all knowledge on earth only as through a glass darkly, 1 Corinthians 13:12 as taking its stand upon little images of the truth. Now, unless I appear to anyone too careful, and over anxious about the examination of this matter, perhaps it was of this and nothing else that the Word Himself intimated that there were things which could not now be borne, but which should be borne and cleared up hereafter, John 16:12 and which John the Forerunner of the Word and great Voice of the Truth declared even the whole world could not contain.

The truth, then—and all of Scripture—is full of difficulty and obscurity. We are undertaking a great work with a small tool when we pursue knowledge of the Self-existent using merely human wisdom. We work alongside the senses, or at least not apart from them—though these senses carry us back and forth and lead us into error—as we search for things that can only be grasped by the mind. We are unable to bring bare intellect into contact with bare realities in order to draw somewhat closer to the truth and shape the mind through its own concepts.

XXI. The truth then, and the whole Word is full of difficulty and obscurity; and as it were with a small instrument we are undertaking a great work, when with merely human wisdom we pursue the knowledge of the Self-existent, and in company with, or not apart from, the senses, by which we are borne hither and there, and led into error, we apply ourselves to the search after things which are only to be grasped by the mind, and we are unable by meeting bare realities with bare intellect to approximate somewhat more closely to the truth, and to mould the mind by its concepts.

Now the subject of God is harder to understand in proportion to how much more perfect it is than any other subject, and it is open to more objections, and the solutions to these objections are more laborious. For every objection, however small, stops and hinders the progress of our argument and cuts off its further advance, just like when riders suddenly check with the reins horses in full gallop and turn them completely around by the unexpected shock. Thus Solomon, who was the wisest of all men, whether before him or in his own time, to whom God gave breadth of heart and a flood of contemplation more abundant than the sand—even he, the more he entered into the depth, the more dizzy he became, and declared the furthest point of wisdom to be the discovery of how very far off she was from him. Paul also tries to arrive at—I will not say the nature of God, for this he knew was utterly impossible—but only the judgments of God; and since he finds no way out and no resting place in the ascent, and moreover, since the earnest searching of his mind after knowledge does not end in any definite conclusion, because some fresh unattained point is being continually disclosed to him (what a marvel, that I have a similar experience), he closes his discourse with astonishment and calls this the riches of God and the depth, and confesses the unsearchableness of the judgments of God, in almost the very words of David, who at one time calls God's judgments the great deep whose foundations cannot be reached by measure or sense, and at another says that His knowledge of him and of his own constitution was marvelous and had attained greater strength than was in his own power or grasp.

Now the subject of God is more hard to come at, in proportion as it is more perfect than any other, and is open to more objections, and the solutions of them are more laborious. For every objection, however small, stops and hinders the course of our argument, and cuts off its further advance, just like men who suddenly check with the rein the horses in full career, and turn them right round by the unexpected shock. Thus Solomon, who was the wisest of all men, 1 Kings 3:12 whether before him or in his own time, to whom God gave breadth of heart, and a flood of contemplation, more abundant than the sand, even he, the more he entered into the depth, the more dizzy he became, and declared the furthest point of wisdom to be the discovery of how very far off she was from him. Ecclesiastes 7:23 Paul also tries to arrive at, I will not say the nature of God, for this he knew was utterly impossible, but only the judgments of God; and since he finds no way out, and no halting place in the ascent, and moreover, since the earnest searching of his mind after knowledge does not end in any definite conclusion, because some fresh unattained point is being continually disclosed to him (O marvel, that I have a like experience), he closes his discourse with astonishment, and calls this the riches of God, Romans 11:23 and the depth, and confesses the unsearchableness of the judgments of God, in almost the very words of David, who at one time calls God's judgments the great deep whose foundations cannot be reached by measure or sense; and at another says that His knowledge of him and of his own constitution was marvellous, and had attained greater strength than was in his own power or grasp.

If, he says, I set everything else aside and simply examine myself—the whole nature and makeup of humanity, how we are put together, how we move, how the mortal was joined with the immortal—I find these questions: How is it that I flow downward yet am carried upward? How is the soul limited, yet how does it give life and participate in feelings? How is the mind both confined and unlimited, remaining in us yet traveling swiftly through the universe in motion and flow? How is it both received and communicated through speech, passing through air and entering into all things? How does it share in sense perception yet also withdraw from sense perception? And even before these questions—what was our first shaping and assembly in nature's workshop, and what is our final formation and completion? What is the desire for food and the receiving of nourishment, and what brought us instinctively to those first springs and sources of life? How is the body nourished by food and the soul by reason? What is nature's pull, and what is the mutual bond between parents and children that holds them together by a spell of love? How do species remain constant and differ in their features, even though there are so many that their individual characteristics cannot be fully described? How is the same living being both mortal and immortal—mortal by death, immortal by generation? For one passes away and another takes its place, just like the flow of a river that is never still yet always constant. And one could discuss many more points about human limbs and parts and their fitting together both for function and beauty, how some are joined and others separate, some more excellent and others less dignified, some unified and others divided, some containing and others contained, according to nature's law and principle. Much could also be said about voices and ears. How is the voice carried by the vocal organs and received by the ears, and how are both joined by the striking and echoing of the air between them? Much too about the eyes, which have an indescribable connection with visible objects and are moved by will alone, moving together and affected exactly as the mind is affected. For with equal speed the mind is joined to objects of thought, the eye to objects of sight. Much too about the other senses, which are not objects of rational investigation. And much about our rest in sleep and the images of dreams, and about memory and recollection, calculation and anger and desire—and in short, all the things by which this little world called man is governed.

XXII. For if, he says, I leave everything else alone, and consider myself and the whole nature and constitution of man, and how we are mingled, and what is our movement, and how the mortal was compounded with the immortal, and how it is that I flow downwards, and yet am borne upwards, and how the soul is circumscribed; and how it gives life and shares in feelings; and how the mind is at once circumscribed and unlimited, abiding in us and yet travelling over the Universe in swift motion and flow; how it is both received and imparted by word, and passes through air, and enters with all things; how it shares in sense, and enshrouds itself away from sense. And even before these questions — what was our first moulding and composition in the workshop of nature, and what is our last formation and completion? What is the desire for and imparting of nourishment, and who brought us spontaneously to those first springs and sources of life? How is the body nourished by food, and the soul by reason? What is the drawing of nature, and the mutual relation between parents and children, that it should be held together by a spell of love? How is it that species are permanent, and are different in their characteristics, although there are so many that their individual marks cannot be described? How is it that the same animal is both mortal and immortal, the one by decease, the other by coming into being? For one departs, and another takes its place, just like the flow of a river, which is never still, yet ever constant. And you might discuss many more points concerning men's members and parts, and their mutual adaptation both for use and beauty, and how some are connected and others disjoined, some are more excellent and others less comely, some are united and others divided, some contain and others are contained, according to the law and reason of Nature. Much too might be said about voices and ears. How is it that the voice is carried by the vocal organs, and received by the ears, and both are joined by the smiting and resounding of the medium of the air? Much too of the eyes, which have an indescribable communion with visible objects, and which are moved by the will alone, and that together, and are affected exactly as is the mind. For with equal speed the mind is joined to the objects of thought, the eye to those of sight. Much too concerning the other senses, not objects of the research of reason. And much concerning our rest in sleep, and the figments of dreams, and of memory and remembrance; of calculation, and anger, and desire; and in a word, all by which this little world called Man is swayed.

Should I list for you the differences among other animals, both from us and from each other—differences in nature, reproduction, nourishment, habitat, temperament, and what we might call social behavior? Why is it that some are herd animals while others are solitary, some eat plants while others eat meat, some are fierce while others are gentle, some are fond of humans and domesticated while others cannot be tamed and remain wild? And we might say that some are close to having reason and the ability to learn, while others are completely without reason and cannot be taught. Some have more developed senses, others less. Some cannot move, while some can walk, and some are very fast while others are very slow. Some excel in size or beauty, or in one or the other of these qualities, while others are very small or very ugly, or both. Some are strong, others weak. Some are good at defending themselves, while others are fearful and cunning, and still others are defenseless. Some are hardworking and industrious, while others are completely idle and wasteful. And before we even get to such matters as these, why is it that some are crawling creatures while others stand upright, some are fixed to one place while others live both on land and in water, some take pleasure in beauty while others have no adornment, some mate while others do not, some are self-controlled while others are excessive, some produce many offspring while others do not, some live long lives while others have only short ones? It would be a tiresome speech to go through all the details.

XXIII. Shall I reckon up for you the differences of the other animals, both from us and from each other — differences of nature, and of production, and of nourishment, and of region, and of temper, and as it were of social life? How is it that some are gregarious and others solitary, some herbivorous and others carnivorous, some fierce and others tame, some fond of man and domesticated, others untamable and free? And some we might call bordering on reason and power of learning, while others are altogether destitute of reason, and incapable of being taught. Some with fuller senses, others with less; some immovable, and some with the power of walking, and some very swift, and some very slow; some surpassing in size or beauty, or in one or other of these respects; others very small or very ugly, or both; some strong, others weak, some apt at self-defense, others timid and crafty and others again are unguarded. Some are laborious and thrifty, others altogether idle and improvident. And before we come to such points as these, how is it that some are crawling things, and others upright; some attached to one spot, some amphibious; some delight in beauty and others are unadorned; some are married and some single; some temperate and others intemperate; some have numerous offspring and others not; some are long-lived and others have but short lives? It would be a weary discourse to go through all the details.

Look also at the fishy tribe gliding through the waters, and as it were flying through the liquid element, and breathing its own air, but in danger when in contact with ours, as we are in the waters. Mark their habits and dispositions, their intercourse and their births, their size and their beauty, and their affection for places, and their wanderings, and their assemblings and departings, and their properties which so nearly resemble those of the animals that dwell on land—in some cases community, in others contrast of properties, both in name and shape. And consider the tribes of birds, and their varieties of form and color, both of those which are voiceless and of songbirds. What is the reason of their melody, and from whom came it? Who gave to the grasshopper the lute in his breast, and the songs and chirping on the branches, when they are moved by the sun to make their midday music, and sing among the groves, and escort the wayfarer with their voices? Who wove the song for the swan when he spreads his wings to the breezes, and makes melody of their rustling? For I will not speak of the forced voices, and all the rest that art contrives against the truth. Where does the peacock, that boastful bird of Media, get his love of beauty and of praise—for he is fully conscious of his own beauty—so that when he sees anyone approaching, or when, as they say, he would make a show before his hens, raising his neck and spreading his tail in a circle around him, glittering like gold and studded with stars, he makes a spectacle of his beauty to his lovers with pompous strides? Now Holy Scripture admires the cleverness in weaving even of women, saying, Who gave to woman skill in weaving and cleverness in the art of embroidery? This belongs to a living creature that has reason, and exceeds in wisdom and makes way even as far as the things of heaven.

XXIV. Look also at the fishy tribe gliding through the waters, and as it were flying through the liquid element, and breathing its own air, but in danger when in contact with ours, as we are in the waters; and mark their habits and dispositions, their intercourse and their births, their size and their beauty, and their affection for places, and their wanderings, and their assemblings and departings, and their properties which so nearly resemble those of the animals that dwell on land; in some cases community, in others contrast of properties, both in name and shape. And consider the tribes of birds, and their varieties of form and color, both of those which are voiceless and of songbirds. What is the reason of their melody, and from whom came it? Who gave to the grasshopper the lute in his breast, and the songs and chirruping on the branches, when they are moved by the sun to make their midday music, and sing among the groves, and escort the wayfarer with their voices? Who wove the song for the swan when he spreads his wings to the breezes, and makes melody of their rustling? For I will not speak of the forced voices, and all the rest that art contrives against the truth. Whence does the peacock, that boastful bird of Media, get his love of beauty and of praise (for he is fully conscious of his own beauty), so that when he sees any one approaching, or when, as they say, he would make a show before his hens, raising his neck and spreading his tail in circle around him, glittering like gold and studded with stars, he makes a spectacle of his beauty to his lovers with pompous strides? Now Holy Scripture admires the cleverness in weaving even of women, saying, Who gave to woman skill in weaving and cleverness in the art of embroidery? This belongs to a living creature that has reason, and exceeds in wisdom and makes way even as far as the things of heaven.

Look also at the natural knowledge of even irrational creatures, and if you can, explain what causes it. How is it that birds build their nests on rocks, trees, and roofs, arranging them both for safety and beauty and for the comfort of their young? Where do bees and spiders get their love of work and skill? Bees design their honeycombs and join them together with hexagonal, coordinated cells, and build the foundation through partitions and alternating angles with straight lines—and all this in such dim hives and dark combs. Spiders weave their intricate webs with delicate, almost weightless threads stretched in various directions, starting from nearly invisible points, creating both a fine dwelling and a trap for weaker creatures to provide themselves with food. What Euclid ever imitated these while pursuing philosophical investigations with lines that have no real existence, wearing himself out with proofs? From what Palamedes did cranes learn their military formations and, as people say, their movements and patterns, their organized flight in ranks and complicated aerial maneuvers? Who were their Phidiases and Zeuxises, their Parrhasiuses and Aglaophons, who knew how to draw and shape things of surpassing beauty? What harmonious Cretan chorus designed by Daedalus was crafted for a girl to the highest degree of beauty? What Cretan Labyrinth, difficult to navigate and difficult to escape, as the poets say, constantly doubling back on itself through the tricks of its design? I will not even mention the ants' storerooms and storekeepers, their gathering of provisions in amounts matching the time they will be needed, and all the other details we know are told about their processions, their leaders, and their orderly work.

XXV. But I would have you marvel at the natural knowledge even of irrational creatures, and if you can, explain its cause. How is it that birds have for nests rocks and trees and roofs, and adapt them both for safety and beauty, and suitably for the comfort of their nurslings? Whence do bees and spiders get their love of work and art, by which the former plan their honeycombs, and join them together by hexagonal and co-ordinate tubes, and construct the foundation by means of a partition and an alternation of the angles with straight lines; and this, as is the case, in such dusky hives and dark combs; and the latter weave their intricate webs by such light and almost airy threads stretched in various ways, and this from almost invisible beginnings, to be at once a precious dwelling, and a trap for weaker creatures with a view to enjoyment of food? What Euclid ever imitated these, while pursuing philosophical enquiries with lines that have no real existence, and wearying himself with demonstrations? From what Palamedes came the tactics, and, as the saying is, the movements and configurations of cranes, and the systems of their movement in ranks and their complicated flight? Who were their Phidiæ and Zeuxides, and who were the Parrhasii and Aglaophons who knew how to draw and mould excessively beautiful things? What harmonious Gnossian chorus of Dædalus, wrought for a girl to the highest pitch of beauty? What Cretan Labyrinth, hard to get through, hard to unravel, as the poets say, and continually crossing itself through the tricks of its construction? I will not speak of the ants' storehouses and storekeepers, and of their treasurings of wood in quantities corresponding to the time for which it is wanted, and all the other details which we know are told of their marches and leaders and their good order in their works.

If you have learned about these things and are familiar with these sciences, look also at the varieties of plants, including the artistic design of their leaves, which is suited both to give the greatest pleasure to the eye and to provide the greatest benefit to the fruit. Look too at the variety and abundant supply of fruits, and most of all at the remarkable beauty of those that are most necessary. And consider the power of roots, saps, flowers, and scents, not only so very sweet but also useful as medicines; and the attractiveness and qualities of colors; and again the precious value and brilliant clarity of gemstones. Since nature has placed before you all things as at an abundant banquet open to everyone, both the necessities and the luxuries of life, so that, if nothing else, you may at least know God through His gifts, and through your own sense of need become wiser than you were. Next, I ask you, explore the length and breadth of the earth, the common mother of all, and the seas connected with one another and with the land, and the beautiful forests, and the rivers and springs abundant and everlasting, not only of waters cold and suitable for drinking and on the surface of the earth, but also those that run beneath the earth and flow under caverns, which are then forced out by a violent blast and pushed back, and then heated by this violence of conflict and resistance, burst out little by little wherever they find an opening, and from this supply our need of hot baths in many parts of the earth, and together with the cold give us a healing that is without cost and natural. Tell me how and from where do these things come? What is this great fabric not made by human skill? These things are no less worthy of wonder in their relationships to one another than when looked at individually.

XXVI. If this knowledge has come within your reach and you are familiar with these branches of science, look at the differences of plants also, up to the artistic fashion of the leaves, which is adapted both to give the utmost pleasure to the eye, and to be of the greatest advantage to the fruit. Look too at the variety and lavish abundance of fruits, and most of all at the wondrous beauty of such as are most necessary. And consider the power of roots, and juices, and flowers, and odours, not only so very sweet, but also serviceable as medicines; and the graces and qualities of colors; and again the costly value, and the brilliant transparency of precious stones. Since nature has set before you all things as in an abundant banquet free to all, both the necessaries and the luxuries of life, in order that, if nothing else, you may at any rate know God by His benefits, and by your own sense of want be made wiser than you were. Next, I pray you, traverse the length and breadth of earth, the common mother of all, and the gulfs of the sea bound together with one another and with the land, and the beautiful forests, and the rivers and springs abundant and perennial, not only of waters cold and fit for drinking, and on the surface of the earth; but also such as running beneath the earth, and flowing under caverns, are then forced out by a violent blast, and repelled, and then filled with heat by this violence of strife and repulsion, burst out little by little wherever they get a chance, and hence supply our need of hot baths in many parts of the earth, and in conjunction with the cold give us a healing which is without cost and spontaneous. Tell me how and whence are these things? What is this great web unwrought by art? These things are no less worthy of admiration, in respect of their mutual relations than when considered separately.

How does the earth stand firm and unmoving? What supports it? What holds it up, and what does that rest on? For reason itself has nothing to lean on except the Will of God. And how is it that part of the earth is raised into mountain peaks while part is spread out in plains, and this in various different ways? And because these variations are each individually small, the earth both supplies our needs more generously and is more beautiful through its variety—part being divided into inhabited areas and part left uninhabited, namely all the great heights of mountains and the various inlets of its coastline cut into it. Is this not the clearest proof of the majestic working of God?

How is it that the earth stands solid and unswerving? On what is it supported? What is it that props it up, and on what does that rest? For indeed even reason has nothing to lean upon, but only the Will of God. And how is it that part of it is drawn up into mountain summits, and part laid down in plains, and this in various and differing ways? And because the variations are individually small, it both supplies our needs more liberally, and is more beautiful by its variety; part being distributed into habitations, and part left uninhabited, namely all the great height of Mountains, and the various clefts of its coast line cut off from it. Is not this the clearest proof of the majestic working of God?

Even if I didn't marvel at the Sea's greatness, I would still marvel at its gentleness—how it remains within its boundaries despite being loose. And if not at its gentleness, then surely at its greatness. But since I marvel at both, I will praise the Power that works in both. What gathered it together? What set its limits? How does it rise and fall as though respecting its neighbor, the earth? Moreover, how does it receive all the rivers yet remain the same, through the sheer immensity of its vastness, if that term is permissible? How is it that the boundary of this enormous element is only sand? Do your natural philosophers with their knowledge of useless details have anything to tell us—those men who are really trying to measure the sea with a wineglass and such mighty works by their own conceptions? Or shall I give the truly scientific explanation from Scripture concisely, yet more satisfactorily and truly than the longest arguments? He has fenced the face of the water with His command. This is the chain of fluid nature. And how does He bring upon it the sailor who inhabits the dry land—that is, man—in a little vessel and with a little breeze? Do you not marvel at this sight? Is your mind not astonished? All this so that earth and sea may be bound together by needs and commerce, and things so widely separated by nature may thus be brought together into one for man. What are the first sources of springs? Search, O man, if you can trace out or find any of these things. And who was it who split the plains and mountains for the rivers and gave them an unhindered course? And how does the marvel work on the other side—that the Sea never overflows, nor the rivers cease to flow? And what is the nourishing power of water, and what is the difference in it? For some things are watered from above, and others drink from their roots, if I may luxuriate a little in my language when speaking of the luxuriant gifts of God.

XXVII. And with respect to the Sea even if I did not marvel at its greatness, yet I should have marvelled at its gentleness, in that although loose it stands within its boundaries; and if not at its gentleness, yet surely at its greatness; but since I marvel at both, I will praise the Power that is in both. What collected it? What bounded it? How is it raised and lulled to rest, as though respecting its neighbour earth? How, moreover, does it receive all the rivers, and yet remain the same, through the very superabundance of its immensity, if that term be permissible? How is the boundary of it, though it be an element of such magnitude, only sand? Have your natural philosophers with their knowledge of useless details anything to tell us, those men I mean who are really endeavouring to measure the sea with a wineglass, and such mighty works by their own conceptions? Or shall I give the really scientific explanation of it from Scripture concisely, and yet more satisfactorily and truly than by the longest arguments? He has fenced the face of the water with His command. This is the chain of fluid nature. And how does He bring upon it the Nautilus that inhabits the dry land (i.e., man) in a little vessel, and with a little breeze (do you not marvel at the sight of this — is not your mind astonished?), that earth and sea may be bound together by needs and commerce, and that things so widely separated by nature should be thus brought together into one for man? What are the first fountains of springs? Seek, O man, if you can trace out or find any of these things. And who was it who cleft the plains and the mountains for the rivers, and gave them an unhindered course? And how comes the marvel on the other side, that the Sea never overflows, nor the Rivers cease to flow? And what is the nourishing power of water, and what the difference therein; for some things are irrigated from above, and others drink from their roots, if I may luxuriate a little in my language when speaking of the luxuriant gifts of God.

XXVIII. And now, leaving the earth and earthly things, soar into the air on the wings of thought, so that our argument may advance along its proper path. From there I will take you up to heavenly things, to heaven itself, and to things above heaven. My discourse hesitates to climb beyond that point, but still it shall ascend as far as possible. Who poured out the air, that great and abundant wealth, not measured out to people according to their rank or fortunes, not restrained by boundaries, not divided according to people's ages, but like the distribution of the manna, received in sufficiency and valued for its equal distribution? It is the chariot of winged creatures, the seat of the winds, the regulator of the seasons, the quickener of living things—or rather the preserver of natural life in the body. In it bodies exist, and by it we speak. In it is the light and all that it shines upon, and the sight that flows through it. And notice, if you will, what follows. I cannot give to the air the entire domain of all that is thought to belong to it. What are the storehouses of the winds? What are the treasuries of the snow? Who, as Scripture has said, has begotten the drops of dew? Out of whose womb came the ice? And who binds the waters in the clouds, and, fixing part in the clouds—O marvel!—held by His Word though its nature is to flow, pours out the rest upon the face of the whole earth, and scatters it abroad in due season and in proper proportions? He neither allows the whole substance of moisture to go out freely and uncontrolled (for the cleansing in the days of Noah was sufficient, and He who cannot lie does not forget His own covenant), nor does He restrain it entirely so that we should need another Elijah to bring the drought to an end. If He shall shut up heaven, it says, who shall open it? If He opens the floodgates, who shall shut them up? Who can bring excess rain or withhold sufficient rain, unless he governs the universe by his own measures and balances? What scientific laws, I ask, can you establish concerning thunder and lightning, O you who thunder from the earth and cannot shine with even small sparks of truth? To what vapors from earth will you attribute the creation of clouds, or is it due to some thickening of the air, or pressure or crash of clouds of excessive rarity, so as to make you think the pressure causes the lightning and the crash causes the thunder? Or what compression of wind having no outlet will explain to you the lightning by its compression and the thunder by its bursting out?

XXVIII. And now, leaving the earth and the things of earth, soar into the air on the wings of thought, that our argument may advance in due path; and thence I will take you up to heavenly things, and to heaven itself, and things which are above heaven; for to that which is beyond my discourse hesitates to ascend, but still it shall ascend as far as may be. Who poured forth the air, that great and abundant wealth, not measured to men by their rank or fortunes; not restrained by boundaries; not divided out according to people's ages; but like the distribution of the Manna, Exodus 16:18 received in sufficiency, and valued for its equality of distribution; the chariot of the winged creation; the seat of the winds; the moderator of the seasons; the quickener of living things, or rather the preserver of natural life in the body; in which bodies have their being, and by which we speak; in which is the light and all that it shines upon, and the sight which flows through it? And mark, if you please, what follows. I cannot give to the air the whole empire of all that is thought to belong to the air. What are the storehouses of the winds? Job 37:9-10 What are the treasuries of the snow? Who, as Scripture has said, has begotten the drops of dew? Out of Whose womb came the ice? And Who binds the waters in the clouds, and, fixing part in the clouds (O marvel!) held by His Word though its nature is to flow, pours out the rest upon the face of the whole earth, and scatters it abroad in due season, and in just proportions, and neither suffers the whole substance of moisture to go out free and uncontrolled (for sufficient was the cleansing in the days of Noah; and He who cannot lie is not forgetful of His own covenant);…nor yet restrains it entirely that we should not again stand in need of an Elias 1 Kings 18:44 to bring the drought to an end. If He shall shut up heaven, it says, who shall open it? If He open the floodgates, who shall shut them up? Job 12:14 Who can bring an excess or withhold a sufficiency of rain, unless he govern the Universe by his own measures and balances? What scientific laws, pray, can you lay down concerning thunder and lightning, O you who thunder from the earth, and cannot shine with even little sparks of truth? To what vapours from earth will you attribute the creation of cloud, or is it due to some thickening of the air, or pressure or crash of clouds of excessive rarity, so as to make you think the pressure the cause of the lightning, and the crash that which makes the thunder? Or what compression of wind having no outlet will account to you for the lightning by its compression, and for the thunder by its bursting out?

Now if you have passed through the air and all the things of air in your thought, reach with me to heaven and the things of heaven. And let faith lead us rather than reason, if at least you have learned the weakness of the latter in matters closer to you, and have come to know reason by knowing the things that are beyond reason, so as not to be altogether on the earth or of the earth, because you are ignorant even of your ignorance.

Now if you have in your thought passed through the air and all the things of air, reach with me to heaven and the things of heaven. And let faith lead us rather than reason, if at least you have learned the feebleness of the latter in matters nearer to you, and have known reason by knowing the things that are beyond reason, so as not to be altogether on the earth or of the earth, because you are ignorant even of your ignorance.

Who spread the sky around us and set the stars in order? Or rather, first, can you tell me from your own knowledge of the things in heaven what the sky and the stars actually are? You don't even know what lies at your very feet, and you can't even take the measure of yourself, yet you busy yourself with what is above your nature and gape at the limitless. You may understand orbits and periods, waxings and wanings, settings and risings, and various degrees and minutes, and all the other things that make you so proud of your wonderful knowledge. But you haven't arrived at understanding the realities themselves—only at observing certain movements. When these observations are confirmed by longer practice, and when the observations of many individuals are drawn together into one generalization from which a law is deduced, this acquires the name of science, just as the lunar phenomena have become generally known to our sight, forming the basis of this knowledge. But if you are very scientific on this subject and have a just claim to admiration, tell me what is the cause of this order and this movement. How did the sun become a beacon-fire to the whole world and to all eyes like the leader of some chorus, concealing all the rest of the stars by his brightness more completely than some of them conceal others? The proof of this is that they shine against him, but he outshines them and doesn't even allow it to be noticed that they rose at the same time as him—fair as a bridegroom, swift and great as a giant, for I will not let his praises be sung from any source other than my own Scriptures. He is so mighty in strength that from one end of the world to the other he embraces all things in his heat, and there is nothing hidden from the feeling of it. He fills every eye with light and every bodily creature with heat, warming yet not burning by the gentleness of his temperament and the order of his movement, present to all and equally embracing all.

XXIX. Who spread the sky around us, and set the stars in order? Or rather, first, can you tell me, of your own knowledge of the things in heaven, what are the sky and the stars; you who know not what lies at your very feet, and cannot even take the measure of yourself, and yet must busy yourself about what is above your nature, and gape at the illimitable? For, granted that you understand orbits and periods, and waxings and wanings, and settings and risings, and some degrees and minutes, and all the other things which make you so proud of your wonderful knowledge; you have not arrived at comprehension of the realities themselves, but only at an observation of some movement, which, when confirmed by longer practice, and drawing the observations of many individuals into one generalization, and thence deducing a law, has acquired the name of Science (just as the lunar phenomena have become generally known to our sight), being the basis of this knowledge. But if you are very scientific on this subject, and have a just claim to admiration, tell me what is the cause of this order and this movement. How came the sun to be a beacon-fire to the whole world, and to all eyes like the leader of some chorus, concealing all the rest of the stars by his brightness, more completely than some of them conceal others. The proof of this is that they shine against him, but he outshines them and does not even allow it to be perceived that they rose simultaneously with him, fair as a bridegroom, swift and great as a giant for I will not let his praises be sung from any other source than my own Scriptures — so mighty in strength that from one end to the other of the world he embraces all things in his heat, and there is nothing hid from the feeling thereof, but it fills both every eye with light, and every embodied creature with heat; warming, yet not burning, by the gentleness of its temper, and the order of its movement, present to all, and equally embracing all.

Have you considered the significance of the fact that a pagan writer says the sun holds the same position among material things as God does among objects of thought? For the sun gives light to our eyes, just as God gives light to the mind. The sun is the most beautiful thing we can see, just as God is the most beautiful thing we can think about. But who first set the sun in motion? And what keeps moving it in its orbit, even though by nature it is stable and immovable—truly tireless, giving and sustaining life, and deserving all the other titles poets rightly give it—never stopping in its course or in the benefits it provides? How does it create day when it's above the earth and night when it's below? Or whatever the right way is to describe this when we think about the sun? What explains the way day and night push against each other and yield to each other, and their orderly disorder—to use a somewhat strange phrase? How does the sun create and divide the seasons, which come and go in regular order, weaving together like a dance or standing apart through a law of both love and order, gradually mixing and encroaching on their neighbor, just as nights and days do, so they don't cause us pain by changing too suddenly? That's enough about the sun.

XXX. Have you considered the importance of the fact that a heathen writer speaks of the sun as holding the same position among material objects as God does among objects of thought? For the one gives light to the eyes, as the Other does to the mind; and is the most beautiful of the objects of sight, as God is of those of thought. But who gave him motion at first? And what is it which ever moves him in his circuit, though in his nature stable and immovable, truly unwearied, and the giver and sustainer of life, and all the rest of the titles which the poets justly sing of him, and never resting in his course or his benefits? How comes he to be the creator of day when above the earth, and of night when below it? Or whatever may be the right expression when one contemplates the sun? What are the mutual aggressions and concessions of day and night, and their regular irregularities — to use a somewhat strange expression? How comes he to be the maker and divider of the seasons, that come and depart in regular order, and as in a dance interweave with each other, or stand apart by a law of love on the one hand, and of order on the other, and mingle little by little, and steal on their neighbour, just as nights and days do, so as not to give us pain by their suddenness. This will be enough about the sun.

Do you know the nature and behavior of the moon, and the measurements and paths of light, and how the sun rules over the day while the moon presides over the night? And while she gives confidence to wild beasts, he stirs man up to work, raising or lowering himself as may be most helpful. Do you know the binding of the Pleiades or the barrier of Orion, as He does who counts the number of the stars and calls them all by their names? Do you know the differences in the glory of each star and the order of their movements, so that I should trust you when you use them to weave together the web of human affairs and turn the creature against the Creator?

Do you know the nature and phenomena of the Moon, and the measures and courses of light, and how it is that the sun bears rule over the day, and the moon presides over the night; and while She gives confidence to wild beasts, He stirs Man up to work, raising or lowering himself as may be most serviceable? Know you the bond of Pleiades, or the fence of Orion Job 38:31 as He who counts the number of the stars and calls them all by their names? Know you the differences of the glory 1 Corinthians 15:41 of each, and the order of their movement, that I should trust you, when by them you weave the web of human concerns, and arm the creature against the Creator?

What do you say? Shall we stop here, having discussed nothing more than matter and visible things? Or, since Scripture knows the Tabernacle of Moses to be a figure of the whole creation—I mean the entire system of visible and invisible things—shall we pass through the first veil and step beyond the realm of the senses? Shall we look into the Holy Place, the intellectual and heavenly creation? But we cannot see even this in a non-bodily way, though it is incorporeal, since it is called—or is—Fire and Spirit. For He is said to make His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire, though perhaps this "making" means preserving them by the same Word through which they came into existence. The angel, then, is called spirit and fire: Spirit, as being a creature of the intellectual realm; Fire, as having a purifying nature. I know that these same names belong to the First Nature as well. But in relation to us, at least, we must consider the angelic nature incorporeal, or at any rate as nearly so as possible. Do you see how we become dizzy over this subject and cannot advance to any clear point, except perhaps this far: that we know there are Angels and Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, Principalities, Powers, Glories, Ascents, Intelligent Powers or Intelligences—pure natures and unmixed, immovable toward evil or scarcely movable; ever circling in worship around the First Cause (or how else should we praise them?), illuminated from that source with the purest Illumination, some in one degree and some in another, according to their nature and rank, so conformed to beauty and shaped that they become secondary lights and can enlighten others through the overflow and generosity of the First Light? They are servants of God's will, strong with both innate and given strength, traveling through all space, readily present to all in any place through their zeal for service and the swiftness of their nature. Different ones among them embrace different parts of the world or are assigned to different regions of the universe, as He knows who ordered and distributed it all. They unite all things together solely with a view to the approval of the Creator of all things. They are singers of the majesty of the Godhead, eternally contemplating the eternal glory—not so that God may gain an increase of glory, for nothing can be added to what is already full, to Him who supplies goodness to all things outside Himself—but so that these first natures after God may never cease receiving blessings. If we have told these things as they deserve, it is by the grace of the Trinity and of the one Godhead in Three Persons. But if less perfectly than we desired, even so our discussion has achieved its purpose. For this is what we were working to show: that even the secondary natures exceed the power of our intellect; how much more, then, does the First Nature and (for I hesitate to say merely "That which is above all") the only Nature.

XXXI. What say you? Shall we pause here, after discussing nothing further than matter and visible things, or, since the Word knows the Tabernacle of Moses to be a figure of the whole creation — I mean the entire system of things visible and invisible — shall we pass the first veil, and stepping beyond the realm of sense, shall we look into the Holy Place, the Intellectual and Celestial creation? But not even this can we see in an incorporeal way, though it is incorporeal, since it is called — or is — Fire and Spirit. For He is said to make His Angels spirits, and His Ministers a flame of fire…though perhaps this making means preserving by that Word by which they came into existence. The Angel then is called spirit and fire; Spirit, as being a creature of the intellectual sphere; Fire, as being of a purifying nature; for I know that the same names belong to the First Nature. But, relatively to us at least, we must reckon the Angelic Nature incorporeal, or at any rate as nearly so as possible. Do you see how we get dizzy over this subject, and cannot advance to any point, unless it be as far as this, that we know there are Angels and Archangels, Thrones, Dominions, Princedoms, Powers, Splendours, Ascents, Intelligent Powers or Intelligencies, pure natures and unalloyed, immovable to evil, or scarcely movable; ever circling in chorus round the First Cause (or how should we sing their praises?) illuminated thence with the purest Illumination, or one in one degree and one in another, proportionally to their nature and rank…so conformed to beauty and moulded that they become secondary Lights, and can enlighten others by the overflowings and largesses of the First Light? Ministrants of God's Will, strong with both inborn and imparted strength, traversing all space, readily present to all at any place through their zeal for ministry and the agility of their nature…different individuals of them embracing different parts of the world, or appointed over different districts of the Universe, as He knows who ordered and distributed it all. Combining all things in one, solely with a view to the consent of the Creator of all things; Hymners of the Majesty of the Godhead, eternally contemplating the Eternal Glory, not that God may thereby gain an increase of glory, for nothing can be added to that which is full — to Him, who supplies good to all outside Himself but that there may never be a cessation of blessings to these first natures after God. If we have told these things as they deserve, it is by the grace of the Trinity, and of the one Godhead in Three Persons; but if less perfectly than we have desired, yet even so our discourse has gained its purpose. For this is what we were labouring to show, that even the secondary natures surpass the power of our intellect; much more then the First and (for I fear to say merely That which is above all), the only Nature.

The First Theological Oration.

The First Theological Oration.

A Preliminary Discourse Against the Eunomians.

A Preliminary Discourse Against the Eunomians.

I am about to speak against people who take pride in their eloquence. So, to begin with a text of Scripture, "Behold, I am against you, O thou proud one" (Jeremiah 50:31)—not only against your system of teaching, but also against your way of hearing and your attitude of mind. For there are certain people who have an itch not only in their ears and tongues, but even, as I now see, in their hands too, craving our words. They delight in profane babblings, oppositions of knowledge falsely so called, and arguments about words that accomplish nothing useful. This is how Paul—the preacher and establisher of the Word who cut things short, the disciple and teacher of the fishermen—describes everything excessive or unnecessary in speech. But as for those I'm talking about, I wish that those whose tongues are so quick and skillful at using noble and impressive language would also pay some attention to their actions. For then perhaps in a little while they would become less sophistic, less absurd, and less like strange acrobats of words—if I may use a ridiculous expression about a ridiculous subject.

I. I am to speak against persons who pride themselves on their eloquence; so, to begin with a text of Scripture, Behold, I am against you, O thou proud one, Jeremiah 50:31 not only in your system of teaching, but also in your hearing, and in your tone of mind. For there are certain persons who have not only their ears 2 Timothy 4:3 and their tongues, but even, as I now perceive, their hands too, itching for our words; who delight in profane babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, and strifes about words, which tend to no profit; for so Paul, the Preacher and Establisher of the Word cut short, Romans 9:28 the disciple and teacher of the Fishermen, calls all that is excessive or superfluous in discourse. But as to those to whom we refer, would that they, whose tongue is so voluble and clever in applying itself to noble and approved language, would likewise pay some attention to actions. For then perhaps in a little while they would become less sophistical, and less absurd and strange acrobats of words, if I may use a ridiculous expression about a ridiculous subject.

II. But since they neglect every path of righteousness and focus only on this one thing—which of the propositions put before them they will affirm or deny (like people who perform wrestling matches in public theaters, not the kind where victory is won according to the rules of the sport, but a kind meant to deceive the eyes of those who don't understand such things and to win applause), and every marketplace must buzz with their talking, and every dinner party be worn out with foolish talk and boredom, and every festival be made joyless and full of gloom, and every occasion of mourning be consoled by a greater disaster—their questions—and all the women's quarters accustomed to simplicity be thrown into confusion and robbed of its flower of modesty by the flood of their words…since this is the case, the evil is intolerable and not to be endured, and our Great Mystery is in danger of being treated as something trivial. So then, let these critics bear with us, moved as we are with fatherly compassion, and as holy Jeremiah says, torn in our hearts (Jeremiah 4:19); let them bear with us enough not to give a hostile reception to our discourse on this subject, and let them, if indeed they can, restrain their tongues for a short while and lend us their ears. However it may turn out, you will at any rate suffer no loss. For either we will have spoken in the ears of those who will hear (Sirach 25:9), and our words will bear some fruit—namely, an advantage to you (since the Sower sows the Word on every kind of mind, and the good and fertile bears fruit)—or else you will depart despising this discourse of ours as you have despised others, and having drawn from it further material for opposing and attacking us, on which to feast yourselves even more.

II. But since they neglect every path of righteousness, and look only to this one point, namely, which of the propositions submitted to them they shall bind or loose, (like those persons who in the theatres perform wrestling matches in public, but not that kind of wrestling in which the victory is won according to the rules of the sport, but a kind to deceive the eyes of those who are ignorant in such matters, and to catch applause), and every marketplace must buzz with their talking; and every dinner party be worried to death with silly talk and boredom; and every festival be made unfestive and full of dejection, and every occasion of mourning be consoled by a greater calamity — their questions — and all the women's apartments accustomed to simplicity be thrown into confusion and be robbed of its flower of modesty by the torrent of their words…since, I say this is so, the evil is intolerable and not to be borne, and our Great Mystery is in danger of being made a thing of little moment. Well then, let these spies bear with us, moved as we are with fatherly compassion, and as holy Jeremiah says, torn in our hearts; Jeremiah 4:19 let them bear with us so far as not to give a savage reception to our discourse upon this subject; and let them, if indeed they can, restrain their tongues for a short while and lend us their ears. However that may be, you shall at any rate suffer no loss. For either we shall have spoken in the ears of them that will hear, Sirach 25:9 and our words will bear some fruit, namely an advantage to you (since the Sower sows the Word upon every kind of mind; and the good and fertile bears fruit), or else you will depart despising this discourse of ours as you have despised others, and having drawn from it further material for gainsaying and railing at us, upon which to feast yourselves yet more.

You should not be surprised if I use language that sounds strange to you and goes against your customs, since you claim to know everything and teach everything in an overly hasty and excessive way—not to offend you by calling it ignorant and reckless.

And you must not be astonished if I speak a language which is strange to you and contrary to your custom, who profess to know everything and to teach everything in a too impetuous and generous manner…not to pain you by saying ignorant and rash.

Not everyone has the right to philosophize about God, my friends—not everyone. The subject is not so trivial and commonplace. And I would add: not before every audience, nor at every time, nor about every aspect. Rather, it should be done on certain occasions, before certain people, and within certain limits.

III. Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits.

Not to all people, because it is permitted only to those who have been examined and are proven experts in meditation, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at the very least are being purified. For the impure to touch the pure is, we may safely say, not safe, just as it is unsafe for weak eyes to look directly at the sun's rays. And what is the right occasion? It is when we are free from all external defilement or disturbance, and when our ruling faculty is not confused by troubling or misleading mental images, like people mixing good handwriting with bad, or filth with the sweet fragrance of perfumes. For it is necessary to be truly at leisure to know God, and when we can find a suitable time, to discern the straight path of divine things. And who are the right people? Those for whom the subject is a matter of genuine concern, and not those who make it a topic of casual conversation, like any other thing, after the races, or the theater, or a concert, or a dinner, or even lower pursuits. To such people as these, idle jokes and clever arguments about these subjects are just part of their entertainment.

Not to all men, because it is permitted only to those who have been examined, and are passed masters in meditation, and who have been previously purified in soul and body, or at the very least are being purified. For the impure to touch the pure is, we may safely say, not safe, just as it is unsafe to fix weak eyes upon the sun's rays. And what is the permitted occasion? It is when we are free from all external defilement or disturbance, and when that which rules within us is not confused with vexatious or erring images; like persons mixing up good writing with bad, or filth with the sweet odours of ointments. For it is necessary to be truly at leisure to know God; and when we can get a convenient season, to discern the straight road of the things divine. And who are the permitted persons? They to whom the subject is of real concern, and not they who make it a matter of pleasant gossip, like any other thing, after the races, or the theatre, or a concert, or a dinner, or still lower employments. To such men as these, idle jests and pretty contradictions about these subjects are a part of their amusement.

Next, on what subjects and to what extent should we philosophize? On matters within our reach, and only to the degree that the mental capacity and understanding of our audience can handle. No further, because just as excessively loud sounds damage the hearing, or too much food harms the body, or if you prefer, excessive burdens beyond one's strength injure those who carry them, or too much rain damages the earth, so these topics too—if people are pressed down and overloaded by the rigidity, if I may use that term, of the arguments—can cause them to lose even the strength they originally had.

IV. Next, on what subjects and to what extent may we philosophize? On matters within our reach, and to such an extent as the mental power and grasp of our audience may extend. No further, lest, as excessively loud sounds injure the hearing, or excess of food the body, or, if you will, as excessive burdens beyond the strength injure those who bear them, or excessive rains the earth; so these too, being pressed down and overweighted by the stiffness, if I may use the expression, of the arguments should suffer loss even in respect of the strength they originally possessed.

V. Now, I am not saying that we should not remember God at all times—I must not be misunderstood, or I will have these clever and quick people attacking me again. For we ought to think of God even more often than we draw our breath; and if the expression is permissible, we ought to do nothing else. Yes, I am one of those who entirely approve of that Word which commands us to meditate day and night, and to speak at evening and morning and noonday, and to praise the Lord at every time; or, to use Moses' words, whether a man lies down, or rises up, or walks by the way, or whatever else he is doing—and by this remembrance we are to be shaped toward purity. So it is not the continual remembrance of God that I would prevent, but only the talking about God; and not even that as wrong in itself, but only when it is unseasonable; nor all teaching, but only lack of moderation. For even honey produces disgust and nausea, though it is honey, if one has too much of it; and, as Solomon says and I believe, there is a time for everything, and what is good ceases to be good if it is not done in a good way; just as a flower is completely out of season in winter, and just as a man's clothing does not suit a woman, nor a woman's a man; and as geometry is out of place at a funeral, or tears at a party—shall we alone disregard the proper time in this matter, where most of all the right season should be respected? Certainly not, my friends and brethren (for I will still call you brethren, though you do not behave like brothers). Let us not think so, nor like hot-tempered and hard-mouthed horses, throwing off our rider Reason and casting away Reverence that keeps us within proper limits, run far away from the turning point, but let us philosophize within our proper boundaries, and not be carried away into Egypt, nor be swept down into Assyria, nor sing the Lord's song in a strange land—by which I mean before any kind of audience, strangers or relatives, hostile or friendly, kind or the opposite, who watch what we do with excessive care and would like the spark of what is wrong in us to become a flame, and secretly kindle and fan it and raise it to heaven with their breath and make it higher than the Babylonian flame that burned up everything around it. For since their strength does not lie in their own teachings, they hunt for it in our weak points. And therefore they apply themselves to our—shall I say misfortunes or failings?—like flies to wounds. But let us at least no longer be ignorant of ourselves or pay too little attention to the proper order in these matters. And if it is impossible to end the existing hostility, let us at least agree on this: that we will speak mysteries quietly, and holy things in a holy manner, and we will not cast before profane ears what may not be uttered, nor give evidence that we possess less seriousness than those who worship demons and serve shameful myths and deeds; for they would sooner give their blood to the uninitiated than certain words. But let us recognize that just as there is a certain propriety in dress and diet and laughter and behavior, so there is also in speech and silence; since among the many titles and powers of God, we pay the highest honor to The Word. Let even our debates then be kept within bounds.

V. Now, I am not saying that it is not needful to remember God at all times;…I must not be misunderstood, or I shall be having these nimble and quick people down upon me again. For we ought to think of God even more often than we draw our breath; and if the expression is permissible, we ought to do nothing else. Yea, I am one of those who entirely approve that Word which bids us meditate day and night, and tell at eventide and morning and noon day, and praise the Lord at every time; or, to use Moses' words, whether a man lie down, or rise up, or walk by the way, or whatever else he be doing Deuteronomy 6:7 — and by this recollection we are to be moulded to purity. So that it is not the continual remembrance of God that I would hinder, but only the talking about God; nor even that as in itself wrong, but only when unseasonable; nor all teaching, but only want of moderation. As of even honey repletion and satiety, though it be of honey, produce vomiting; Proverbs 25:16 and, as Solomon says and I think, there is a time for every thing, Ecclesiastes 3:1 and that which is good ceases to be good if it be not done in a good way; just as a flower is quite out of season in winter, and just as a man's dress does not become a woman, nor a woman's a man; and as geometry is out of place in mourning, or tears at a carousal; shall we in this instance alone disregard the proper time, in a matter in which most of all due season should be respected? Surely not, my friends and brethren (for I will still call you Brethren, though you do not behave like brothers). Let us not think so nor yet, like hot tempered and hard mouthed horses, throwing off our rider Reason, and casting away Reverence, that keeps us within due limits, run far away from the turning point, but let us philosophize within our proper bounds, and not be carried away into Egypt, nor be swept down into Assyria Daniel 3:12, nor sing the Lord's song in a strange land, by which I mean before any kind of audience, strangers or kindred, hostile or friendly, kindly or the reverse, who watch what we do with over great care, and would like the spark of what is wrong in us to become a flame, and secretly kindle and fan it and raise it to heaven with their breath and make it higher than the Babylonian flame which burnt up every thing around it. For since their strength lies not in their own dogmas, they hunt for it in our weak points. And therefore they apply themselves to our — shall I say misfortunes or failings?– like flies to wounds. But let us at least be no longer ignorant of ourselves, or pay too little attention to the due order in these matters. And if it be impossible to put an end to the existing hostility, let us at least agree upon this, that we will utter Mysteries under our breath, and holy things in a holy manner, and we will not cast to ears profane that which may not be uttered, nor give evidence that we possess less gravity than those who worship demons, and serve shameful fables and deeds; for they would sooner give their blood to the uninitiated than certain words. But let us recognize that as in dress and diet and laughter and demeanour there is a certain decorum, so there is also in speech and silence; since among so many titles and powers of God, we pay the highest honour to The Word. Let even our disputings then be kept within bounds.

Why should we allow someone who is hostile to such teachings to hear about God's Generation, or his creation, or how God was made from things that did not exist, or about division and analysis and separation? Why do we make our accusers into judges? Why do we hand weapons to our enemies? How do you think, or in what frame of mind, will someone receive arguments about such matters when he approves of adultery and the corruption of children, worships the passions, and cannot conceive of anything higher than the body—someone who until very recently set up gods for himself, gods known for the most shameful deeds? Won't he first approach these things from a materialistic perspective, shamefully and ignorantly, in the manner he is accustomed to? Won't he use your theology as a defense for his own gods and passions? For if we ourselves recklessly misuse these words, it will be a long time before we persuade them to accept our philosophy. And if they are themselves inventors of evil things, how could they refrain from seizing upon such things when we offer them? These are the results that come to us from mutual争论. These are the consequences for those who fight for the Word beyond what the Word approves—they are behaving like madmen who set fire to their own house, or tear apart their own children, or disown their own parents, treating them as strangers.

VI. Why should a man who is a hostile listener to such words be allowed to hear about the Generation of God, or his creation, or how God was made out of things which had no existence, or of section and analysis and division? Why do we make our accusers judges? Why do we put swords into the hands of our enemies? How, do you think, or with what temper, will the arguments about such subjects be received by one who approves of adulteries, and corruption of children, and who worships the passions and cannot conceive of anything higher than the body…who till very lately set up gods for himself, and gods too who were noted for the vilest deeds? Will it not first be from a material standpoint, shamefully and ignorantly, and in the sense to which he has been accustomed? Will he not make your Theology a defense for his own gods and passions? For if we ourselves wantonly misuse these words, it will be a long time before we shall persuade them to accept our philosophy. And if they are in their own persons inventors of evil things, how should they refrain from grasping at such things when offered to them? Such results come to us from mutual contest. Such results follow to those who fight for the Word beyond what the Word approves; they are behaving like mad people, who set their own house on fire, or tear their own children, or disavow their own parents, taking them for strangers.

VII. But once we have removed from the conversation those who don't belong in it, and sent the great legion on its way to the abyss into the herd of swine, the next thing is to look at ourselves and polish our theological understanding to beauty like a statue. The first point to consider is this: What is this great rivalry of speech and endless talking? What is this new disease of insatiability? Why have we tied our hands and armed our tongues? We don't praise hospitality, brotherly love, conjugal affection, or virginity. We don't admire generosity to the poor, the chanting of Psalms, all-night vigils, or tears. We don't keep the body under control by fasting or go forth to God through prayer. We don't subject the worse to the better—I mean the dust to the spirit—as those would do who form a just judgment of our composite nature. We don't make our life a preparation for death. We don't make ourselves masters of our passions, mindful of our heavenly nobility. We don't tame our anger when it swells and rages, nor our pride that brings us to a fall, nor unreasonable grief, nor unchastened pleasure, nor meretricious laughter, nor undisciplined eyes, nor insatiable ears, nor excessive talk, nor absurd thoughts, nor any of the opportunities the Evil One gets against us from sources within ourselves—bringing upon us the death that comes through the windows, as Holy Scripture says, that is, through the senses. No, we do the very opposite and have given freedom to the passions of others, just as kings grant releases from service in honor of a victory, only on condition that they incline to our side and make their assault upon God more boldly or more impiously. And we give them an evil reward for something that is not good—license of tongue for their impiety.

VII. But when we have put away from the conversation those who are strangers to it, and sent the great legion Luke 8:31 on its way to the abyss into the herd of swine, the next thing is to look to ourselves, and polish our theological self to beauty like a statue. The first point to be considered is — What is this great rivalry of speech and endless talking? What is this new disease of insatiability? Why have we tied our hands and armed our tongues? We do not praise either hospitality, or brotherly love, or conjugal affection, or virginity; nor do we admire liberality to the poor, or the chanting of Psalms, or nightlong vigils, or tears. We do not keep under the body by fasting, or go forth to God by prayer; nor do we subject the worse to the better — I mean the dust to the spirit — as they would do who form a just judgment of our composite nature; we do not make our life a preparation for death; nor do we make ourselves masters of our passions, mindful of our heavenly nobility; nor tame our anger when it swells and rages, nor our pride that brings to a fall, nor unreasonable grief, nor unchastened pleasure, nor meretricious laughter, nor undisciplined eyes, nor insatiable ears, nor excessive talk, nor absurd thoughts, nor anything of the occasions which the Evil One gets against us from sources within ourselves; bringing upon us the death that comes through the windows, Jeremiah 9:21 as Holy Scripture says; that is, through the senses. Nay we do the very opposite, and have given liberty to the passions of others, as kings give releases from service in honour of a victory, only on condition that they incline to our side, and make their assault upon God more boldly, or more impiously. And we give them an evil reward for a thing which is not good, license of tongue for their impiety.

VIII. But now, talkative debater, I will ask you one small question, and you answer me, as God says to Job when He gives divine warnings through whirlwind and cloud. Are there many dwelling places in God's house, as you have heard, or only one? You will surely admit there are many, not just one. Now, are all of them to be filled, or only some while others remain empty — so that some will be left vacant and prepared for no purpose? Of course all will be filled, for nothing God has done can be pointless. Can you tell me what you think this dwelling place is? Is it the rest and glory stored up there for the blessed, or something else? — No, nothing else. Since we agree on this point, let us examine another one as well. Is there something that obtains these dwelling places, as I believe there is, or is there nothing? — Certainly there is. — What is it? Is it not that there are various ways of living and various aims, one leading one direction and another leading another, according to one's measure of faith, and these we call Ways? Must we then travel all these Ways, or only some of them? Can the same person travel along all of them, if that is possible, or if not, along as many as possible, or at least along some of them? And even if that is not possible, it would still be a great thing, at least as it seems to me, to travel excellently along even one. — You are right in your understanding. — Then what does it show you when you hear there is only one way, and that a narrow one? That there is only one because of its excellence. For it is one, even though it divides into many parts. And narrow because of its difficulties, and because it is traveled by few compared to the multitude of adversaries and those who travel along the road of wickedness. I think so too. Well then, my good friend, since this is the case, why do you, as if condemning our teaching for some kind of poverty, rush headlong down that path which leads through what you call arguments and speculations, but what I call trivialities and tricks? Let Paul rebuke you with those stern reproaches when, after listing the gifts of grace, he says, "Are all apostles? Are all prophets?" and so on.

VIII. And yet, O talkative Dialectician, I will ask you one small question, Job 38:3 and answer thou me, as He says to Job, Who through whirlwind and cloud gives Divine admonitions. Job 38:1 Are there many mansions in God's House, as you have heard, or only one? Of course you will admit that there are many, and not only one. Now, are they all to be filled, or only some, and others not; so that some will be left empty, and will have been prepared to no purpose? Of course all will be filled, for nothing can be in vain which has been done by God. And can you tell me what you will consider this Mansion to be? Is it the rest and glory which is in store There for the Blessed, or something else?– No, not anything else. Since then we are agreed upon this point, let us further examine another also. Is there anything that procures these Mansions, as I think there is; or is there nothing?– Certainly there is — What is it? Is it not that there are various modes of conduct, and various purposes, one leading one way, another another way, according to the proportion of faith, and these we call Ways? Must we, then, travel all, or some of these Ways…the same individual along them all, if that be possible; or, if not, along as many as may be; or else along some of them? And even if this may not be, it would still be a great thing, at least as it appears to me, to travel excellently along even one.– You are right in your conception. — What then when you hear there is but One way, and that a narrow one, Matthew 7:14 does the word seem to you to show? That there is but one on account of its excellence. For it is but one, even though it be split into many parts. And narrow because of its difficulties, and because it is trodden by few in comparison with the multitude of the adversaries, and of those who travel along the road of wickedness. So I think too. Well, then, my good friend, since this is so, why do you, as though condemning our doctrine for a certain poverty, rush headlong down that one which leads through what you call arguments and speculations, but I frivolities and quackeries? Let Paul reprove you with those bitter reproaches, in which, after his list of the Gifts of Grace, he says, Are all Apostles? Are all Prophets? Etc. 1 Corinthians 12:29

But let's suppose you are right. You are lofty, even beyond the lofty, even above the clouds if you like, a spectator of invisible things, a hearer of unspeakable things. You have ascended after Elijah, been deemed worthy of the Vision of God after Moses, and been taken up into heaven after Paul. Why then do you mold the rest of your fellow human beings into saints in one day and ordain them theologians? Why do you, as it were, breathe instruction into them and make them into many councils of ignorant oracles? Why do you entangle those who are weaker in your spider's web, as if it were something great and wise? Why do you stir up wasps' nests against the Faith? Why do you suddenly unleash a flood of dialectics upon us, as the old fables did with the Giants? Why have you gathered all that is frivolous and unmanly among men, like a rabble, into one torrent, and having made them more effeminate by flattery, fashioned a new workshop, cleverly making a harvest for yourself out of their lack of understanding? Do you deny that this is so, and are the other matters of no account to you? Must your tongue rule at any cost, and can you not restrain the labor pains of your speech? You could find many other honorable subjects for discussion. Turn this disease of yours to these topics with some advantage. Attack the silence of Pythagoras, and the Orphic beans, and the novel boast about "The Master said." Attack the ideas of Plato, the transmigrations and courses of our souls, the reminiscences, and the unlovely loves of the soul for lovely bodies. Attack the atheism of Epicurus, his atoms, and his unphilosophic pleasure; or Aristotle's petty Providence, his artificial system, and his discourses about the mortality of the soul and the humanitarianism of his doctrine. Attack the superciliousness of the Stoa, or the greed and vulgarity of the Cynic. Attack the Void and Full (what nonsense), and all the details about the gods and the sacrifices and the idols and demons, whether beneficent or malignant, and all the tricks that people play with divination, evoking of gods or of souls, and the power of the stars. And if these things seem to you unworthy of discussion as petty and already often refuted, and you will keep to your line and seek the satisfaction of your ambition in it, then here too I will provide you with broad paths. Philosophize about the world or worlds; about matter; about soul; about natures endowed with reason, good or bad; about resurrection; about judgment; about reward; or the Sufferings of Christ. For in these subjects to hit the mark is not useless, and to miss it is not dangerous. But with God we shall have converse, in this life only in a small degree, but a little later, it may be, more perfectly, in the Same, our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory forever. Amen.

IX. But, be it so. Lofty you are, even beyond the lofty, even above the clouds, if you will, a spectator of things invisible, a hearer of things unspeakable; one who hast ascended after Elias, and who after Moses hast been deemed worthy of the Vision of God, and after Paul hast been taken up into heaven; why do you mould the rest of your fellows in one day into Saints, and ordain them Theologians, and as it were breathe into them instruction, and make them many councils of ignorant oracles? Why do you entangle those who are weaker in your spider's web, if it were something great and wise? Why do you stir up wasps' nests against the Faith? Why do you suddenly spring a flood of dialectics upon us, as the fables of old did the Giants? Why have you collected all that is frivolous and unmanly among men, like a rabble, into one torrent, and having made them more effeminate by flattery, fashioned a new workshop, cleverly making a harvest for yourself out of their want of understanding? Do you deny that this is so, and are the other matters of no account to you? Must your tongue rule at any cost, and can you not restrain the birthpang of your speech? You may find many other honourable subjects for discussion. To these turn this disease of yours with some advantage. Attack the silence of Pythagoras, and the Orphic beans, and the novel brag about The Master said. Attack the ideas of Plato, and the transmigrations and courses of our souls, and the reminiscences, and the unlovely loves of the soul for lovely bodies. Attack the atheism of Epicurus, and his atoms, and his unphilosophic pleasure; or Aristotle's petty Providence, and his artificial system, and his discourses about the mortality of the soul, and the humanitarianism of his doctrine. Attack the superciliousness of the Stoa, or the greed and vulgarity of the Cynic. Attack the Void and Full (what nonsense), and all the details about the gods and the sacrifices and the idols and demons, whether beneficent or malignant, and all the tricks that people play with divination, evoking of gods, or of souls, and the power of the stars. And if these things seem to you unworthy of discussion as petty and already often confuted, and you will keep to your line, and seek the satisfaction of your ambition in it; then here too I will provide you with broad paths. Philosophize about the world or worlds; about matter; about soul; about natures endowed with reason, good or bad; about resurrection, about judgment, about reward, or the Sufferings of Christ. For in these subjects to hit the mark is not useless, and to miss it is not dangerous. But with God we shall have converse, in this life only in a small degree; but a little later, it may be, more perfectly, in the Same, our Lord Jesus Christ, to Whom be glory forever. Amen.